Skip to main content

Full text of "Beaty John The Iron Curtain Over America ussr soviet"

See other formats




c Wilkinson ^Publishing Gompany 

1717 Wood Street 
Dallas, Texas 















Permission is hereby granted to reprint non-consecutive passages of fifteen 
lines or less provided that not more than four such passages shall be drawn from 
any one chapter and provided further that two copies of the work in which the 
quotations are used shall be sent to the author. Box 150, S.M.U. Station, Dallas 
5, Texas, 

Correspondence in regard to the reprinting of longer excerpts, the purchasing 
of the book in quantity bv others than booksellers, serialization, translation, etc,, 
should be addressed to the author. 

Quoted passages of more than a few lines — except for excerpts from govern- 
ment documents and works published prior to 1896 — are used here by permission, 
and such passages, of course, must not be reprinted except by arrangement with 
the publisher or author who owns the copyright. See Acknowledgments, p. 235. 


To the Reader 


I. The Teutonic Knights and Germany 

O « A ft © 0 


XL Russia and the Khazars 

« * o © » 6 0 0 9 © 


III. The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 

0 0 0 0 6 


XV. “The Unnecessary War’ . 60 

V. The Black Hood of Censorship 

9 9 

VX. The Foreign Policy of 

Truman Administration . 110 

VI!. Does the National Democratic 

Want War? . . 157 

VXIX. Cleaning the Augean Stables . . . 

0 6 0 I • © 


IX. America Can Still Be Free . . . . 

0 0 6 6 0 © 



0 O 9 * « O * 


A Note on the Eighth Printing . 

Index . . . 

<20 0 0 0 * 9 60 0*000 

♦ 6 


Many authors of books on the current world scene have been 
White House confidants, commanders of armies, and others 
whose authority is indicated by their official or military titles. 
Such authors need no introduction to the public. A prospective 
reader is entitled, however, to know something of the background 
and experience of an unknown or little-known writer who is 
offering a comprehensive volume on a great and important sub- 

In the spring of 1926, the author was selected by the Albert 
Kahn Foundation to investigate and report on world affairs. 
Introduced by preliminary correspondence and provided with 
numerous letters of introduction to persons prominent in govern- 
ment, politics, and education, he gained something more than a 
tourist’s reaction to the culture and institutions, the movements 
and the pressures in the twenty-nine countries which he visited. 
In several countries, including great powers, he found conditions 
and attitudes significantly different from the conception of them 
which prevailed in the United States. Though previously suc- 
cessful in disposing of his writings, he was unable, however, to 
get his observations on the world situation published, except as 
the Annual Report of the Foundation and in his friendly home 
state of Texas — in the Dallas Morning News , of which he was a 
special foreign correspondent, and in the Southwest Review , in 
whose files his ‘‘Race and Population, Their Relation to World 
Peace” can still be seen as a virtual prognosis of the oncoming 

After his return to America in the autumn of 1927, the author 
kept abreast of world attitudes by correspondence with many 
of the friends he had made in his travels and by reading French, 
German, and Italian news periodicals, as well as certain English 
language periodicals emanating from Asia. World trends con- 


tinued to run counter to what the American people were allowed 
to know, and a form of virtual censorship blacked out efforts at 
imparting information. For instance, though the author s text- 
books continued to sell well and though his novel Swords in the 
Dawn (1937) was favorably received, his book Image of Life 
(Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1940), which attempted to show 
Americans the grave world-wide significance of the degradation 
of their cultural standards, was granted, as far as he knows, not 
a single comment in a book review or a book column in New 
Yorlc Indeed, the book review periodical with the best reputa- 
tion for full coverage failed to list Image of Life even under 
“Books Received.” 

In 1940 — as our President was feverishly and secretly pre- 
paring to enter World War II and publicly denying any such 
purpose — the author, a reserve captain, was “alerted,” and in 
1941 was called to active duty in the Military Intelligence Service 
of the War Department General Staff. His first assignment was 
to write, or help write, short pamphlets on military subjects, 
studies of several campaigns including those in Western Europe 
and Norway, and three bulletins on the frustration of an enemy’s 
attempts at sabotage and subversion. 

In 1942, the author became a major and Chief of the Histori- 
cal Section (not the later Historical Branch of the War Depart- 
ment Special Staff). In his new capacity, he supervised a group 
of experts who prepared a current history of events in the various 
strategically important areas of the world. Also, he was one of 
the two editors of the daily secret “G-2 Report,” which was issued 
each noon to give persons in high places, including the White 
House, the world picture as it existed four hours earlier. While 
Chief of the Historical Section, the author wrote three widely 
circulated studies of certain phases of the German-Russian cam- 

In 1943 — during which year he was also detailed to the Gen- ) 
eral Staff Corps and promoted to lieutenant colonel — the author 
was made Chief of the Interview Section. In the next three years 


he interviewed more than two thousand persons, most of whom 
were returning from some high mission, some delicate assign- 
ment, or some deed of valor — often in a little-known region of 
the world. Those interviewed included military personnel in rank 
from private first class to four stars, diplomatic officials from vice- 
consuls to ambassadors and special representatives of the Presi- 
dent, senators and congressmen returning from overseas investi- 
gations, missionaries, explorers, businessmen, refugees, and jour- 
nalists — among the latter, Raymond Clapper and Ernie Pyle, who 
were interviewed between their next to the last and their last 
and fatal voyages. These significant people were presented 
sometimes individually but usually to assembled groups of officers 
and other experts from the various branches of G-2, from other 
General Staff divisions, from each of the technical services, and 
from other components interested in vital information which 
could be had by interview perhaps six weeks before being 
received in channeled reports. In some cases the author increased 
his knowledge of a given area or topic by consulting documents 
suggested during an interview. Thus, from those he interviewed, 
from those specialists for whom he arranged the interviews, and 
from study in which he had expert guidance, he had a unique 
opportunity for learning the history, resources, ideologies, capa- 
bilities, and intentions of the great foreign powers. In its most 
essential aspects, the picture was terrifyingly different from the 
picture presented by our government to the American people! 

After the active phase of the war was over, the author was 
offered three separate opportunities of further service with the 
army — all of them interesting, all of them flattering. He wished, 
however, to return to his home and his university and to prepare 
himself for trying again to give the American people the world 
story as he had come to know it; consequently, after being ad- 
vanced to the rank of colonel, he reverted to inactive status, 
upon his own request, in December, 1946. Twice thereafter he 
was recalled for a summer of active duty: in 1947 he wrote a 
short history of the Military Intelligence Service, and in 1949 he 


prepared for the Army Field Forces an annotated reading list 
for officers in the Military Intelligence Reserve. 

From 1946 to 1951 the author devoted himself to extending 
his knowledge of the apparently diverse but actually interrelated 
events in the various strategic areas of the present-day world. 
The goal he set for himself was not merely to uncover the facts 
but to present them with such a body of documented proof that 
their validity could not be questioned. Sustaining quotations for 
significant truths have thus been taken from standard works of 
reference; from accepted historical writings; from government 
documents; from periodicals of wide public acceptance or of 
known accuracy in fields related to America’s foreign policy; and 
from contemporary writers and speakers of unquestioned stand- 

The final product of a long period of travel, army service, and 
study is T7ie Iron Curtain Over America. The book is neither 
memoirs nor apology, but an objective presentation of "things as 
they are.” It differs from many other pro-American books princi- 
pally in that it not only exhibits the external and internal dangers 
which threaten the survival of our country, but shows how they 
developed and why they continue to plague us. 

The roads we "travel so briskly lead out of dim antiquity,” 
said General James G. Ilarbord, and we must stu<fy the past 
“because of its bearing on the living present” and because it is 
our only guide for the future. The author has thus turned on the 
light in certain darkened or dimmed out yet tremendously sig- 
nificant phases of the history of medieval and modem Europe. 
Since much compression was obligatory, and since many of the 
facts will to most readers be wholly new and disturbing. Chap- 
ters I and II may be described as "hard reading.” Even a rapid 
perusal of them, however, will prepare the reader for understand- 
ing better the problems of our country as they are revealed in 
succeeding chapters. 

In The Iron Curtain Over America authorities are cited not 
in a bibliography or in notes but along with the text to which 


'they are pertinent. The documentary matter is enclosed by 
parentheses, and many readers will pass over it. It is there, how- 
ever, for those who wish its assurance of validity, for those who 
wish to locate and examine the context of quoted material, and 
especially for those who wish to use this book as a springboard 
for further study. 

In assembling and documenting his material, the author fol- 
lowed Shakespeare’s injunction, "nothing extenuate, nor set 
down aught in malice.” Writing with no goal except to serve his 
country by telling the truth, fully substantiated, he has humbly 
and reverently taken as his motto, or text, a promise of Christ 
the Saviour as recorded in the Gospel According to Saint John 
(VIII, 32): 

And Ye Shall Know The Truth 
And The Truth Shall Make You Free. 

Only an informed American people can save America — and 
they can save it only if all those, to whom it is given to know, 
will share their knowledge with others. 











Chapter I 


For more than a thousand years a fundamental problem of 
Europe, the source, seat, and historic guardian of Western civili- 
zation, has been to save itself and its ideals from destruction by 
some temporary master of the men and resources of Asia. This 
statement implies no criticism of the peoples of Asia, for Europe 
and America have likewise produced leaders whose armies have 
invaded other continents. 

Since the fall of the Roman Empire of the West in 476 A.D., 
a principal weakness of Western Europe lias been a continuing 
lack of unity. Charlemagne (742-814) — who was crowned Em- 
peror of the West in Rome in S00 — gave the post-Roman Euro- 
pean world a generation of unity, and exerted influence even as 
far as Jerusalem, where he secured the protection of Christian 
pilgrims to the shrines associated with the birth, the ministry, and 
the crucifixion of Christ. Unfortunately, Charlemagne’s empire 
was divided shortly after his death into three parts (Treaty of 
Verdun, 843). From two of these France and Germany derived 
historic boundaries — and a millenium of wars fought largely 
to change them! 

After Charlemagne’s time, the first significant power efforts 
with a continent-wide common purpose were the Crusades 
(1096-1291). In medieval Europe the Church of Rome, the only 
existing international organization, had some of the characteristics 
of a league of nations, and it sponsored these mass movements of 
Western Europeans toward the East. In fact, it was Pope 
Urban II, whose great speech at Clermont, France, on Novem- 
ber 26, 1095, initiated the surge of feeling which inspired the 
people of France, and of Europe in general, for the amazing 
adventure. The late medieval setting of the epochal speech is 
re-created with brilliant detail by Harold Lamb in his book, 
The Crusades: Iron Men and Saints (Doubleday, Doran & Co., 
Inc., Garden City, New York, 1930, Chapters VI and VII). 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Pope crossed the Alps from schism-tom Italy and, French- 
man himself, stirred the people of France as he rode among them. 
In the chapel at Clermont, he first swayed the men of the church 
who had answered his summons to the meeting; then, surrounded 
by cardinals and mail-clad blights on a golden-canopied platform 
in a field by the church, he addressed the multitude: 

You are girded knights, but you are arrogant with pride. 

You turn upon your brothers with fury, cutting down one the 
other. Is this the service of Christ? . . . Come forward to the 
defense of Christ. 

The great Pope gave his eager audience some pertinent and 
inspiring texts from the recorded words of Jesus Christ: 

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the midst of them ( The Gospel According to 
Saint Matthew, Chapter XVIII, Verse 20). 

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or 
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for 
my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit 
everlasting life ( Saint Matthew, Chapter XIX, Verse 29). 

To the words of the Saviour, the Pope added his own specific 

Set forth then upon the way to the Holy Sepulcher . . . and 
fear not. Your possessions here will be safeguarded, and yon 
will despoil the enemy of greater treasures. Do not fear death, 
where Christ laid down His life for you. If any should lose 
their lives, even on the way thither, by sea or land, or in 
strife with the pagans, their sins will be requited them. I 
grant this to all who go, by the power vested in me by Cod 
(Harold Lamb, op. cit., p. 42). 

Through the long winter, men scanned their supplies, ham- 
mered out weapons and armor, and dreamed dreams of their holy 
mission. In the summer that followed, they "started out on what 
they called the voyage of God (Harold Lamb, op. cit., p. vii). 
As they faced East they shouted on plains and in mountain val- 
leys, "God wills it.” 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 


Back of the Crusades there was a “mixture of motives” (En- 
cyclopsedia Brifcmri/ca, Fourteenth Edition, Vol. VI, p. 773). 
The immediate goal of those who made the journey was the res- 
cue of the tomb of Christ from the non-Christian power which 
then dominated Palestine. Each knight wore a cross on his outer 
garment and they called themselves by a Latin name Cruciati 
(from crux, cross), or soldiers of the cross, which is translated 
into English as Crusaders. A probable ecclesiastical objective of 
the great international effort was to purify the Church of Rome 
from the dissension which plagued it and to extend its influence 
not only in the Moslem world but in areas dominated by the 
Byzantine Empire with its Orthodox church. Other objectives 
were the containment of Mohammedan power and the protection 
of pilgrims to the Holy Land ( Encyc . Brit., Vol. VI, p. 722). 

Inspired by the promise of an eternal home in heaven, alike 
for those who might perish on the way and those who might 
reach the Holy Sepulcher, the Crusaders could not fail. Some of 
them survived the multiple perils of the journey and reached 
Palestine, where they captured the Holy City and founded the 
Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099). In this land, which they 
popularly called Outremer or Beyond The Sea, they established 
the means of livelihood, built churches, and saw children and 
grandchildren bom. The Latin Kingdom’s weaknesses, vicissi- 
tudes, and final destruction by the warriors of Islam, who had 
been driven back but not destroyed, constitute a vivid chapter 
of history — alien, however, to the subject matter of The Iron 
Curtain Over America. 

Many of the Crusaders became members of three military- 
religious orders. Unlike the Latin Kingdom, these orders have 
survived, in one form or another, the epoch of the great adven- 
ture, and are of significant interest in the middle of the twentieth 
century. The Knights Hospitalers — or by their longer title, the 
Knights of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem — 
were "instituted” upon an older charitable foundation by Pope 
Paschal II in 1113 (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIX, pp. 836-838). The 
fraternity of the Knights Templars (Poor Knights of Christ and 
of the Temple of Solomon) was founded not as a hospital but 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

directly as a military order about 1119, and was installed by 
Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, in a building known as the “Tem- 
ple of Solomon” —hence the name Templars (E ncyc. Brit., Vol. 
XXI, pp. 920-924). Both Hospitalers and Templars are fairly well 
known to those who have read such historical novels as The 
Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. 

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem maintained its rule for 
nearly a hundred years, 1099-1187 (see Lamb, op. cit., and The 
Crusade: The Worlds Debate, by Hilaire Belloc, Cassell and 
Company, Ltd., London, 1937), Still longer the Crusaders held 
Acre on the coast of Palestine. When their position on the main- 
land became untenable, the Templars moved to the island of 
Cyprus, which was the seat of its Grand Master at the time of its 
dissolution (1306-1312) as an international military brotherhood. 
The Hospitalers moved to the island of Rhodes, where their 
headquarters buildings — visited and studied by the author — 
still stand in superb preservation facing the waters of the Inland 
Sea. From Rhodes, the Knights of the Hospital moved to Malta — 
hence their later name, Knights of Malta — and held sovereignty 
on that famous island until 1798. 

The two principal Mediterranean orders and their history, 
including the assumption of some of their defense functions by 
Venice and then by Britain, do not further concern us. It is in- 
teresting to note, however, as we take leave of the Templars and 
tire Hospitalers, that the three Chivalric Orders of Crusaders are 
in some cases the direct ancestors and in other cases have afForded 
the inspiration, including the terminology of knighthood, for 
many of the important present-day social, fraternal, and philan- 
thropic orders of Europe and America. Among these are the 
Knights Templar, which is “claimed to be a lineal descendant” 
of the Crusade order of similar name; the Knights of Pythias, 
founded in 1864; and the Knights of Columbus, founded in 1882 
(quotation and dates from Webster’s New International Dic- 
tionary, Second Edition, 1934, p. 1370). 

The third body of medieval military-religious Crusaders was 
the Knighthood of the Teutonic Order. This organization was 
founded as a hospital in the winter of 1190-91 — according to 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 

tradition, on a small ship which had been pulled ashore near 
Acre. Its services came to be so highly regarded that in March, 
1198, “the great men of the army and the [Latin] Kingdom raised 
the brethren of the German Hospital of St. Mary to the rank of 
an Order of Knights” ( Encyc . Brit., Vol. XXI, pp. 983-9S4). Soon, 
however, the Order found that “its true work lay on the Eastern 
frontiers of Germany” (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XXI, p. 984). Invited 
by a Christian Polish Prince ( 1226 ) to help against the still un- 
converted Prussians, a body of knights sailed down the Vistula 
establishing blockhouses and pushed eastward to found Koenigs- 
burg in 1255. In 1274, a castle was established at Marienburg and 
in 1309 tiie headquarters of the Grand Master was transferred 
(Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIV, p. 886) from Venice to this remote bor- 
der city on the Nojat River, an eastern outlet of the Vistula (The 
Rise of Brandenburg- Prussia to I7SG, by Sidney Bradshaw Fay, 
Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1937). 

It was to the Teutonic Order that the Knight of Chaucer’s 
famous Canterbury Tales belonged (Selections from Chaucer, 
edited by Clarence Griffin Child, D. C. Heath & Co., Boston, 
1912, p. 150). Chaucer’s lines (Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, 
11., 52-53); 

Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne 

Aboven alle naciouns in Pruce 

tell us that this Knight occupied the seat of Grand Master, pre- 
sumably at the capital, Marienburg, and presided over Knights 
from die various nations assembled in “Pruce” (Prussia) to hold 
the pagan East at bay. In bis military-religious capacity Chaucer’s 
Knight “fought for our faith” in fifteen battles, including those in 
Lithuania and in Russia (Prologue, 11., 54-63). 

The Teutonic Knights soon drove eastward, or converted to 
Christianity, the sparsely settled native Prussian people, and 
assumed sovereignty over East Prussia. They encouraged the 
immigration of German families of farmers and artisans, and their 
domain on the soudi shore of the Baltic became a self-contained 
German state, outside the Holy Roman Empire. The boundaries 
varied, at one time reaching die Gulf of Finland (see Historical 

0 The Iron Curtain Over America 

Atlas, by William R. Shepherd, Henry Holt and Company, New 
York, 1911, maps 77, 79, 87, 99, 119). “The hundred years from 
1309 to 1409 were the Golden Age of the Teutonic Knights. Young 
nobles from all over Europe found no greater honor than to come 
out and fight under their banner and be knighted by their Grand 
Master” (Fay, op. cit., pp. 32-33). As the years passed, the func- 
tion of the Teutonic Knights as defenders, or potential defend- 
ers, of the Christian West remained unchanged. 

Those who founded the Teutonic Order on the hospital ship 
in Palestine spoke German and from the beginning most of the 
members were from the various small states into which in medie- 
val times the German people were divided. As the Crusading 
spirit waned in Europe, fewer Knights were drawn from far-off 
lands and a correspondingly larger number were recruited from 
nearby German kingdoms, duchies, and other autonomies. 

Meanwhile, to Brandenburg, a neighbor state to the west of 
the Teutonic Order domain, tire Emperor Sigismund sent as ruler 
Frederick of Hohenzollem and five years later made him heredi- 
tary elector. “A new era of prosperity, good government, and 
princely power began with the arrival of the Hohenzollems in 
Brandenburg in the summer of 1412” (Fay, op. cit., pp. 7-9). 

After its Golden Age, the Teutonic Order suffered from a 
lack of religious motivation, since all nearby peoples including 
the Lithuanians had been converted. It suffered, too, from poor 
administration and from military reverses. To strengthen their 
position, especially against Poland, the Knights elected Albert of 
Hohenzollem, a cousin of the contemporary elector Joachim I 
(rule, 1499-1535), as Grand Master in 1511. Unlike Chaucer’s 
Knight, a lay member who was the father of a promising son, 
Albert was a clerical member of the Teutonic Order. He and his 
elector cousin were both great grandsons of Frederick, the first 
Hohenzollem elector (Fay, op. cit., passim). 

In most German states in the first quarter of the sixteenth 
century, “things were not right,” “there was discontent deep in 
men’s hearts,” and "existing powers,” ecclesiastical as w r ell as lay, 
“abused their trust.” The quoted phrases are from an essay, 
“Luther and the Modem Mind” ( The Catholic World, October, 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 7 

1946) by Dr. Thomas P. Neill, who continues: 

This was the stage on which Luther appeared when he 
nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door at Wittenberg 
on Hallowe'en of 1517. The Catholic Church had come on 
sorry 7 days, and had there been no Luther there would likely 
have been a successful revolt anyway. But there was a Luther. 

The posting of the famous “ninety-five theses” by Martin 
Luther foreshadowed his break, complete and final by the spring 
of 1522, with the Church of Rome. Since the church in Germany 
was temporarily at a low ebb, as shown by Dr. Neill, Luther’s 
controversy with its authorities won him “the sympathy and sup- 
port of a large proportion of his countrymen” ( Encyc. Brit., Vol. 
XIV, p. 944). 

The outcome was a new form of Christianity, known later as 
Protestantism, which made quick headway among North Ger- 
mans and East Germans. Its adherents included many Teutonic 
Knights, and their German chief was interested. Still nominally 
a follower of the Church of Rome, Albert visited Luther at Wit- 
tenberg in 1523. “Luther advised: ‘Give up your vow as a monk; 
take a wife; abolish the order; and make yourself hereditary Duke 
of Prussia’ ” (Fay, op. cit., p. 38). The advice was taken. 

Thus since a large proportion of its members and its chief had 
embraced Protestantism, the Knighthood severed its slender tie 
with the Church of Rome. In the words of the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica (Vol. I, p. 522), “Albert of Hohenzollem, last Grand 
Master of the Teutonic Order” became “first Duke of Prussia.” 

In this manner the honorable and historic heritage of extend- 
ing Christianity in the lands south of the Baltic passed from a 
military- religious order to a Germany duchy. Prussia and not the 
Teutonic Order now governed the strategically vital shoreland of 
the southeast Baltic, between the Niemen and Vistula rivers. 

Proud of their origin as a charitable organization and proud 
of being a bulwark of Christianity, first Catholic and then Protes- 
tant, the people of Prussia, many of them descended from the lav 
knights, developed a “strong sense of duty and loyalty.” From 
them came also “many of the generals and statesmen who helped 
to make Prussia great . . (Fay, op. cit., p, 2). 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 


This duchy of Prussia was later united with Brandenburg 
by the marriage of Anna, daughter and heiress of the second Duke 
of Prussia, to the elector, John Sigismund (Hohenzollem). Under 
the latter’s grandson, Frederick William, the "Great Elector” 
(reign, 1640-1688), Brandenburg-Prussia became second only to 
Austria among the member states of the Holy Roman Empire — 
some of its territory, acquired from the Teutonic Order, extend- 
ing even beyond the loose confederation — and it was "regarded 
as the head of German protestantism” (Encijc. Brit., Vol. IV, 
p. 33 and passim). 

By an edict of the Holy Roman Emperor, the state of Bran- 
denburg-Prussia became the kingdom of Prussia in 1701; the 
royal capital was Berlin, which was in the heart of the old prov- 
ince of Brandenburg. Under Frederick tire Great (reign, 1740- 
1786), Prussia became one of the most highly developed nations 
of Europe. A century later, it was the principal component of 
the German Empire which the Minister-President of Prussia, 
Otto von Bismarck, caused to be proclaimed in the Hall of Mir- 
rors at Versailles (January 18, 1871), 

Prussia’s historic function, inherited from the Teutonic Order, 
of standing as a bastion on the Baltic approach to Europe, was 
never fully forgotten by the West. The Ilohenzollem monarchy 
was the strongest Protestant power on the continent and its rela- 
tions with the governments of both England and America were 
intimate and friendly. The royal family of England several times 
married into the Prussian dynasty. Frederick William II of 
Brandenburg-Prussia, later to be Frederick, first king of Prussia, 
(see preceding paragraph) helped William of Orange, the arch- 
enemy of Louis XIV of France, to land in England, where he 
became (1688) co-sovereign with his wife, Mary Stuart, and a 
friend and helper of the American colonies. It was a Prussian 
Baron, Frederick William von Steuben, whom General George 
Washington made Inspector General (May, 1778), responsible 
for the training and discipline of the green American troops. In 
1815 Prussian troops under Field Marshal von Bluecher helped 
save Wellington’s England from Napoleon. In 1902 Prince Henry 
of Prussia, brother of the German Emperor, paid a state visit to 

the United States and received at West Point, Annapolis, Wash- 
ington, and elsewhere, as royal a welcome as was ever accorded 
to a foreign visitor by the government of the United States. The 
statue of Frederick the Great, presented in appreciation, stood 
in front of the main building of the Army War College in Wash- 
ington during two wars between the countrymen of Frederick 
of Hohenzollem and the countrymen of George Washington, an 
evidence in bronze of the old Western view that fundamental 
relationships between peoples should survive the temporary dis- 
turbances occasioned by wars. 

The friendly relationships between the United States and 
Germany existed not only on the governmental level but were 
cemented by close racial kinship. Not only is the basic blood 
stream of persons of English descent very nearly identical with 
that of Germans; in addition, nearly a fourth of the Americans 
of the early twentieth century were actually of German descent 
(Chapter IV, below). 

Thus, in the early years of the twentieth century the American 
people admired Germany. It was a strong nation, closely akin; 
and it was a Christian land, part Protestant and part Catholic, 
as America had been part Catholic since Lord Baltimore founded 
Maryland and part Protestant since the Cavaliers came to Vir- 
ginia and the Puritans to New England. Moreover, the old land 
of the Teutonic Knights led the world in music, in medicine, and 
in scholarship. The terms Prussia and Prussian, Germany and 
German had a most favorable connotation. 

Then came World War I (1914), in which Britain and France 
and their allies were opposed to Ccrmany and her allies. Since 
tire citizens of the United States admired all three nations they 
were stunned at the calamity of such a conflict and were slow in 
taking sides. Finally (1917), and to some extent because of the 
pressure of American Zionists (Chapter III, below), we joined 
the Entente group, which included Britain and France. The bur- 
den of a great war was accepted by the people, even with some 
enthusiasm on the Atlantic seaboard, for according to our propa- 
gandists it was a war to end all wars. It was pointed out, too, 
that Britain among the world’s great nations was closest to us in 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 


language and culture, and that France had been traditionally a 
friend since the Marquis of Lafayette and the Count of Rocham- 
beau aided General Washington, 

With a courage fanned by the newly perfected science of 
propaganda, the American people threw themselves heart and 
soul into defeating Germany in the great "war to end all wars. 
The blood-spilling — the greatest in all history and between men 
of kindred race — was ended by an armistice on November 11, 
1918, and the American people entertained high hopes for lasting 
peace. Their hopes, however, were soon to fade away. With dif- 
fering viewpoints, national and personal, and with the shackles 
of suddenly revealed secret agreements between co-belligerents. 
President Woodrow Wilson, Prime Minister David Lloyd George, 
Premier Georges Clemeneeau of France, and Prime Minister 
Vittorio Orlando of Italy had much difficulty in agreeing on the 
terms of peace treaties (1919), the merits or shortcomings of 
which cannot in consequence be fully chalked up to any one of 

It remains indisputable, however, that in what they agreed 
to in the treaty made with Germany at Versailles (June 28, 1919) 
and in the treaty made with Austria at St. Germain (September 
10, 1919) the four American delegates, dominated by President 
Wilson, departed at least to some extent from our tradition of 
humane treatment of a defeated enemy. The heavily populated 
German nation was deprived of much territory, including vital 
mineral areas and a “Polish Corridor” which, under the terms of 
the treaty, separated the original duchy of Prussia from the rest 
of the country. Germany was deprived also of its merchant fleet 
and was saddled with an impossible load of reparations. As a 
consequence, the defeated country was left in a precarious 
position which soon produced an economic collapse. The Austro- 
Hungarian Empire, ancient outpost of the Teutonic peoples and 
of Western Christian civilization on the Danube Valley invasion 
route from Asia, was destroyed at St. Germain. The result was 
the serious general economic dislocation to be expected from the 
collapse of an imperial government, and the inevitable dire dis- 
tress to the people, especially in the capital city of Vienna (popu- 

lation over 2,000,000), which was left with little sustaining terri- 
tory, except scenic and historic mountains. Moreover, although 
Austro-Hungary was broken up under the theory that its people 
should be put into small pigeon-hole nations on racial and lin- 
guistic considerations, the new Czechoslovak state was given 
3,500,000 persons of German blood and speech. 

In this treatment of Germany and Austria our leaders not 
merely set up conditions conducive to the extreme distress of 
millions of people; they also by those same conditions flouted the 
recognized principles of sound military and national policy, for 
the strategic use of victory demands that the late enemy be 
drawn into the victor’s orbit as friend and ally. As one example 
of the strategic use of victory, our War of 1812, with Britain, was 
followed by an earnest bilateral effort at the solution of mutual 
problems by the Monroe Doctrine (1823) in the field of inter- 
national relations, and by the crumbling of unused forts on the 
U.S.-Canadian border. As a second example, Britain’s war with 
South Africa, which ended in 1902, was followed by such hu- 
manity and fairness that a defeated people, different in speech 
and culture, became an ally instead of an enemy in the great 
war which began only twelve years later in 1914. 

The crash in Germany came in 1923, when German money 
lost its value. There was terrible suffering among the people 
everywhere and especially in the cities and industrial areas. As 
the mark’s purchasing power approached zero, a widow would 
realize from her husband’s life insurance "just enough to buy a 
meal” (“Inflation Concerns Everyone,” by Samuel B. Pettengill, 
Readers Digest, October, 1951). “Berlin in 1923 was a city of 
despair. People waited in the alley behind the Hotel Adlon ready 
to pounce on garbage cans immediately they were placed out- 
side tire hotel’s kitchen.” A cup of coffee "cost one million marks 
one day, a million and a half the next and two million the- day 
following” (Drew Pearson, March 22, 1951). 

In hunger and desperation, many Germans blamed their 
troubles on Jews, w r hom they identified with Communism. "The 
fact that certain Jews, such as Kurt Eisner, Toller, and Levine, 
had been leaders of Communist Movements [1918, 1919] . . . gave 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

the conservatives the opportunity of proclaiming that the Jews 
were responsible for the national misfortunes and disorders” 

( Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 366, 367). The Ger- 
man attitude was intensified by the new power German Jews 
acquired in the terrible year 1923 from using funds derived from 
rich race-conscious Jews in other countries and by an inrush of 
Jews from the destroyed Austro-Hungarian Empire and from the 
East. “Some of those Eastern European Jews took an active part 
in the speculation which was rampant in Germany because of 
the unstable currency and the shortage of commodities” ( Ameri~ 
ca's Second Crusade, by William Henry Chamberlin, Henry Reg- 
nery Company, 1950, pp. 30, 31). The influx from the East had 
also the effect of reviving the viewpoint of certain earlier Ger- 
mans that Jews were not assimilable but were really invaders. 
“In 1880 the learned but fanatical Professor Treitschke’s phrase, 
‘Die Juden sind unser Unglueck’ [The Jews are our misfortune], 
gained currency all through the German empire” (H. Graetz, 
Popular History of the Jews, Vol. VI, by Max Raisin, The Jordan 
Publishing Co., New York, 1935, p. 162). Also, “according to 
Grattenauer’s Wider die Juden (1803), the Jews of Germany 
were, as early as that period, regarded as ‘Asiatic Immigrants’ ” 
(I/nio. Jcic. Encyc., Vol. I, p. 341). 

This fateful German-Jcwish tension was destined to have a 
major role in the history of the United States, and will be dealt 
with further in subsequent chapters. 

The immediate result of the events of 1923 was an increase of 
Jewish power in the Reich. “Bled white” in World War I, like 
Britain and France, Germany bent to its economic tragedy with- 
out significant resistance, but the resentment of the people at 
being starved and humiliated (as they believed) by a minority 
of less than one percent smoldered like live coals awaiting 
almost any fanning into flame. Our usual helping hand — so 
generously extended in the Japanese earthquake tragedy of 
1923 and in other calamities — was withheld, while this small 
group increased its control (for some idea of the extent of the 
control by Jews in the city of Berlin five years after Hitler 
assumed power, see- the Readers Digest for May, 1938, p. 126), 

The Teutonic Knights and Germany 


After 1919, anti-German propaganda in the United States did 
not cease, as was strategically desirable, but was continued un- 
remittingly in the press and by the new opinion-controlling 
medium, the radio. Americans were taught to hate Germany and 
Germans and to loathe Prussia and Prussians, not any longer as 
a war-time “psychological” attack, but as a permanent attitude. 

The task of the propagandists was made easier by the appear- 
ance on the world’s stage (1933) of the demagogue Adolph Hitler, 
whose assumption of the combined offices of Chancellor and 
President of Germany (Chapter IV, below), under the alien and 
repugnant title of “Fuehrer,” shocked the sensibilities of the 
American people who w'ere accustomed to a Republican form of 
government with the still effective checks and balances of the 
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. 

In 1936, Britain was making efforts to establish workable 
arrangements with Germany. Symbolically, and with much pub- 
licity, a thousand German war veterans were entertained in Eng- 
land by a thousand British war veterans. A naval ratio, most 
favorable to Britain, had been agreed upon. The President of the 
United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had in his first year of office 
(1933) recognized the Communist Government of Russia (Chap- 
ter III, below), but was otherwise “isolationist” in his general 
attitude toward Europe. Then on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, he 
made an about-face (Chapter IV, below') in his famous “Quar- 
antine” speech against Germany. Though his sudden “fears” had 
no foundation in facts — as kn own then or as discovered later — 
our policy was charted, and England, forced to a decision, be- 
came a partner in our anti-German action. With no enthusiasm, 
such as was generated in 1919, the American people soon found 
themselves (December, 1941) involved in a second and even 
more frightful World War against two of our former allies, Japan 
and Italy, and against our World War I opponent, Germany (see 
Chapters IV and V, below). 

The propagandists against Germany and the German people 
did not cease, however, with Hitler’s defeat and death (1945) 
and the resultant effacement of his government and his policies. 
After Hitler, as before Hitler, these propagandists did not allow 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

the American public to realize the strategic fact that a country 
like an individual needs friends and that a permanent destruc- 
tive attitude toward a nation because of a former ruler is as 
stupid, for instance, as a hatred for the people of an American 
state because of an unpopular ex-governor. 

Thus, instead of correcting our error of 1919 and making cer- 
tain at the end of World War II to draw a properly safeguarded 
but humanely treated Germany definitely into our orbit, we 
adopted in 1945 an intensified policy of hate, denied tire Ger- 
mans a peace treaty more than six years after the suspension of 
active warfare, and took additional steps (Chapters IV, VI, and 
VII, below) which could have had no other purpose — concealed, 
of course, even from some of those who furthered it — than the 
final destruction of Germany. 

Woodrow Wilson, despite the terrible and still largely undocu- 
mented pressures upon him, had at least preserved Prussia at the 
close of World War I. Franklin Roosevelt, however, tossed it from 
his failing hands to the minority (see Chapter II) who, with con- 
verts to their Marxist concept of statism, had succeeded the 
Romanov Czars as masters of Russia, With Malta lost in 1798 
and Prussia destroyed in 1945, the temporal state-structures of 
the Crusaders and their successors ceased to exist. 

Under the preaching of Urban II, most of the Western World 
had developed a frenzy of unity; under Roosevelt II, or rather 
under those who manipulated him, it did so again. The goal this 
time, however, was not the defense of Europe or the rescue of 
the tomb of Christ; the goal, on the contrary, was a monstrous 
surrender of the Western heritage of Christian civilization. Yes, 
it was actually tire United States of America which was mainly 
responsible for destroying the successor state to the Teutonic 
Knights and for delivering the ruins, with the hegemony of 
Europe, to the Soviet Union, the new Communist power of our 

The facts outlined in this chapter have — as will be shown in 
following chapters — a significant bearing on the present mid- 
century world struggle between Communism and Western Chris- 
tian civilization. 

Chapter II 


Having traced the Knighthood of the Teutonic Order from 
its origin to its dissolution as a military-religious brotherhood, 
and having noted the development of successor sovereignties 
down to the obliteration of Prussia in 1945, we must turn back 
more than a thousand years, to examine another thread -a 
scarlet one — in the tangled skein of European history. 

In tlie later years of the dimly recorded first millennium of 
the Christian era, Slavic people of several kindred tribes occu- 
pied the land which became known later as the north central 
portion of European Russia. South of them between the Don and 
Volga rivers and north of the lofty Caucasus Mountains lived a 
people known to history as Khazars (Ancient Russia, by George 
Vernadsky, Yale University Press, 1943, p. 214). These people 
had been driven westward from Central Asia and entered Europe 
by the corridor between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian 
Sea. They found a land occupied by primitive pastoral people of 
a score or more of tribes, a land which lay beyond the boundaries 
of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan (ruled, 
98-117 A.D.), and also beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine 
Empire (395-1453). By slow stages the Khazars extended their 
territory eventually to the Sea of Azov and the adjacent littoral 
of the Black Sea. The Khazars were apparently a people of mixed 
stock with Mongol and Turkic affinities. “Around die year 600, 
a belligerent tribe of half-mongolian people, similar to the mod- 
em Turks, conquered the territory of what is now Southern 
Russia. Before long the kingdom [khanate] of the Khazars, as 
this tribe was known, stretched from the Caspian to the Black 
Sea. Its capital, Ityl, was at the mouth of the Volga River” (A 
History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadelphia, The 
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947). 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

In the eighth or ninth century of our era, a khakan (or chagan, 
roughly equivalent to tribal chief or primitive king) of the 
Khazars wanted a religion for his pagan people. Partly, perhaps, 
because of incipient tension between Christians and the adher- 
ents of the new Mohammedan faith (Mohammed died in 632), 
and partly because of fear of becoming subject to the power of 
the Byzantine emperor or the Islamic caliph (Ancient Russia, p. 
291), he adopted a form of the Jewish religion at a date gen- 
erally placed at c. 741 A.D., but believed by Vernadsky to be as 
late as 865. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 
(Vol. VI, pp. 375-377), this chieftain, probably Bulan, "called 
upon the representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Moham- 
medanism to expound their doctrines before him. This discus- 
sion convinced him that the Jewish faith was the most preferable, 
and he decided to embrace it. Thereupon he and about 4,000 
Khazars were circumcised; it was only by degrees that the Jewish 
teachings gained a foothold among the population/’ 

In his History of the Jews (The Jewish Publication Society 
of America, Vol. Ill, 1894, pp. 140-141), Professor II. Graetz gives 
further details: 

A successor of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of 
Obadiah, was the first to make serious efforts to further the 
Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his 
dominions, rewarded them royally, founded synagogues and 
schools ... caused instruction to be given to himself and his 
people in the Bible and the Talmud, and introduced a divine 
service modeled on the ancient communities. 

After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish chagans, for 
according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers 
were permitted to ascend the throne. 

The significance of the term “ancient communities” cannot be 
here explained. For a suggestion of the “incorrect exposition” and 
the “tasteless misrepresentations” with which the Bible, i.e., the 
Old Testament, was presented through the Talmud, see below, 
in this chapter, the extensive quotation from Professor Graetz. 
Also in the Middle Ages, Viking warriors, according to Hus- 

Rttssia and the KJiazars 


sian tradition by invitation, pushed from the Baltic area into the 
low hills west of Moscow. Archaeological discoveries show that 
at one time or another these Northmen penetrated almost all 
areas south of Labe Ladoga and West of the Kama and Lower 
Volga rivers. Tlieir earliest, and permanent, settlements were 
north and east of the West Dwina River, in the Lake Ilmen area, 
and between the Upper Volga and Oka rivers, at whose junc- 
tion they soon held the famous trading-post of Nizhni-Novgorod 
( Ancient Russia, p. 267). 

These immigrants from the North and West were principally 
"the ‘Russ’ — a Varangian tribe in ancient annals considered as 
related to the Swedes, Angles, and Northmen” (Encyclopaedia 
Uritannica, Vol. XIX, p. 712). From the local Slavic tribes, they 
organized (c. 862) a state, known subsequently from their name 
as Russia, which embraced the territory of the upper Volga and 
Dnieper rivers and reached down the latter river to the Black 
Sea (An Introduction to Old Norse, by E. V. Gordon, Oxford 
University Press, 1927, map between pp. xxiv-xxv) and to the 
Crimea. Russ and Slav were of related stock and their languages, 
though quite different, had common Indo-Germanic origin. They 
accepted Christianity as their religion. "Greek Orthodox mission- 
aries, sent to Rus [i.e, "Russia”] in the 860’s baptized so many 
people that shortly after this a special bishop was sent to care 
for their needs” (A History of the Ukraine , by Michael Hrushev- 
sky, Yale University Press, 1941, p. 65). 

The "Rus" (or “Russ”) were absorbed into the Slav popula- 
tion which they organized into statehood. The people of the new 
state devoted themselves energetically to consolidating their 
territory and extending its boundaries. From the Khazars, who 
had extended tlieir power up the Dnieper Valley, they took Kiev, 
which “was an important trading center even before becoming, 
in the 10th cent., the capital of a large recently Christianized 
state” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia , Vol. VI, p. 381). Many 
Varangians (Rus) had settled among the Slavs in this area (the 
Ukraine), and Christian Kiev became the seat of an enlightened 
Westward-looking dynasty, whose members married into several 
European royal houses, including that of France. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Slavs, especially those in the area now known as the 
Ukraine, were engaged in almost constant warfare with the Kha- 
zars and finally, by 1016 A. D., destroyed the Khazar government 
and took a large portion of Khazar territory. For the gradual 
shrinking of the Khazar territory and the development of Poland, 
Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and other Slavic states, 
see the pertinent maps in Historical Atlas, by William R. Shep- 
herd (Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1911). Some of the 
subjugated Khazars remained in the Slav-held lands their khakans 
had long ruled, and others “migrated to Kiev and other parts of 
Russia” ( Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 377), prob- 
ably to a considerable extent because of the dislocations wrought 
by the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1162-1227), who founded 
in and beyond the old Khazar khanate the short-lived khanate of 
the Golden Horde. The Judaized Khazars underwent further dis- 
persion both northwestward into Lithuanian and Polish areas, 
and also within Russia proper and the Ukraine. In 1240 in Kiev 
"the Jewish community was uprooted, its surviving members 
finding refuge in towns further west” ( Unio . Jew, Enctjc., Vol. 
VI, p. 382) along with the fleeing Russians, when the capital fell 
to the Mongol soldiers of Batu, the nephew of Genghis Khan. A 
short time later many of these expelled Jews returned to Kiev. 
Migrating thus, as some local power impelled them, the Khazar 
Jews became widely distributed in Western Russia. Into the 
Khazar khanate there had been a few Jewish immigrants — 
rabbis, traders, refugees — but the people of the Kievan Russian 
state did not facilitate the entry of additional Jews into their 
territory. The rulers of the Grand Duchy of Moscow also sought 
to exclude Jews from areas under its control. “From its earliest 
times the policy of the Russian government was that of complete 
exclusion of the Jews from its territories” ( Unit). Jew. Encyc., 
Vol. I, p. 384). For instance, “Ivan IV [reign, 1533-1584] refused 
to allow Jewish merchants to travel in Russia” (op. cit., Vol. I, 
p. 384). 

Relations between Slavs and the Judaized Khazars in their 
midst were never happy. The reasons were not racial — for the 
Slavs had absorbed many minorities — but were ideological. The 

Russia and the Khazars 


rabbis sent for by Khakan Obadiah were educated in and were 
zealots for the Babylonian Talmud, which after long labors by 
many hands had been completed on December 2, 499. In the 
thousands of synagogues which were built in the Khazar khanate, 
the imported rabbis and their successors were in complete con- 
trol of the political, social, and religious thought of their people. 
So significant was the Bablyonian Talmud as the principal cause 
of Khazar resistance to Russian efforts to end their political and 
religious separatism, and so significant also are the modern 
sequels, including those in the United States, that an extensive 
quotation on the subject from the great History of the Jews, by 
Professor H. Graetz (Vol. II, 1893, pp. 631 ff.) is here presented: 

The Talmud must not be regarded as an ordinary work, 
composed of twelve volumes; it possesses absolutely no simi- 
larity to any other literary production, but forms, without 
any figure of speech, a world of its own, which must be 
judged by its peculiar laws. . . 

The Talmud contains much that is frivolous of which it 
treats with great gravity and seriousness; it further reflects 
the various superstitious practices and views of its Persian 
birthplace which presume the efficacy of demonical medi- 
cines, of magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpre- 
tations of dreams. . . It also contains isolated instances of un- 
charitable judgments and decrees against the members of 
other nations and religions, and finally it favors an incorrect 
exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it does, tasteless 
m isrepresen ta t i o ns. 

More than six centuries lie petrified in the Talmud. . . 
Small wonder then, that . . . the sublime and the common, 
the great and the small, the grave and the ridiculous, the 
altar and the ashes, the Jewish and the heathenish, be dis- 
covered side by side. . . 

The Babylonian Talmud is especially distinguished from 
the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of thought, 
the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and 
vanish again. , . It was for this reason that the Babylonian 
rather than the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental 
possession of the Jewish race, its life breath, its very soul . . . 


The Iron Curtain Ooer America 

nature and mankind, powers and events, were for the Jew- 
ish nation insignificant, non-essential, a mere phantom; the 
only true reality was the Talmud. 

Not merely educated by the Talmud but actually living the 
life of its Babylonian background, which they may have regarded 
with increased devotion because most of the Jews of Mesopo- 
tamia had embraced Islam, the rabbi-govemed Khazars bad no 
intention whatever of losing their identity by becoming Russian- 
ized or Christian. The intransigent attitude of tbe rabbis was 
increased by their realization that their power would be lost if 
their people accepted controls other than Talmudic. These con- 
trols by rabbis were responsible not only for basic mores, but for 
such externals as the peculiarities of dress and hair. It has been 
frequently stated by writers on the subject that the “ghetto” was 
the work not of Russians or other Slavs but of rabbis. 

As time passed, it came about that these Khazar people of 
mixed non-Russian stock, who hated the Russians and lived 
under Babylonian Talmudic law, became known in the western 
world, from their place of residence and their legal-religious code, 
as Russian Jews. 

In Russian lands after the fall of Kiev in 1240, there was a 
period of dissension and disunity. The struggle with the Mongols 
and other Asiatic khanates continued and from them the Russians 
learned much about effective mil: tar)' organization. Also, as the 
Mongols had not overrun Northern and Western Russia (Shep- 
herd, op. cit., Map 77), there was a background for the resistance 
and counter-offensive which gradually eliminated the invaders. 
The capital of reorganized Russia was no longer Kiev but Mos- 
cow (hence the terms Moscow and Muscovite). In 1613 the 
Russian nobles (boyars), desired a more stable government than 
they had had, and elected as their czar a boy named Michael 
Romanov, w'hose veins carried the blood of the grand dukes of 
Kiev and tbe grand dukes of Moscow. 

Under the Romanovs of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
turies, there was no change in attitude toward the Judaized Kha- 
zars, who scorned Russian civilization and stubbornly refused to 

Russia and the Khazars 


enter the fold of Christianity. “Peter the Great [reign, 1682-1725] 
spoke of the Jew's as ‘rogues and cheats’ ” ( Popular History of the 
Jews, by H. Graetz, New York, The Jordan Publishing Co., 1919, 
1935, Vol. VI by Max Raisin, p. 89). “Elizabeth [reign, 1741-1762] 
expressed her attitude in the sentence: ‘From the enemies of 
Christ, I desire neither gain nor profit’ ” ( Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. 
I, p. 384). With the expansion of Russia in the last half of the 
eighteenth century, many additional Jew's w r ere acquired with 
the new territory, especially in Russia's portion of divided Poland 
(1772, 1793, 1795). The Empress, Catherine II [reign, 1762- 
1796] laid no choice but to receive the Jews along with the other 
inhabitants of the land, but she created out of the provinces taken 
from Poland a “Pale of Settlement” from which the newly ac- 
quired Jews could not move (Gmetz-Raisin, op. cit., p. 90). As 
before, “from that time on the attitude of the government was to 
hem in the Jews as much as possible” ( Univ . Jew. Encyc., Vol. I, 
p. 384). 

Under the Romanov dynasty (1613-1917) many members of 
the Russian upper classes were educated in Germany, and the 
Russian nobility, already partly Scandinavian by blood, fre- 
quently married Germans or other Western Europeans. Likewise 
many of the Romanovs, themselves — in fact all of them who 
ruled in the later years of the dynasty — married into Western 
families. Prior to the nineteenth century the two occupants of 
the Russian throne best known in world history were Peter I, the 
Great, and Catherine II, the Great. The former —who in 1703 
gave Russia its “West Window,” St. Petersburg, later known as 
Petrograd, and recently as Leningrad — chose as his consort and 
successor on the throne as Catherine I [reign, 1725-1727], a cap- 
tured Marienburg (Germany) servant girl whose mother and 
father were respectively a Lithuanian peasant woman and a 
Swedish dragoon. Catherine II, the Great, was a German prin- 
cess who was proclaimed reigning Empress of Russia after her 
husband, the ineffective Czar Peter III, “subnormal in mind and 
physique” (Encyc. Brit., Vol. V, p. 37), left St. Petersburg. During 
her thirty-four years as Empress, Catherine, by studying such 
works as Blackstone’s Commentaries, and by correspondence 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

with such illustrious persons as Voltaire, F. M. Grimm, Frederick 
the Great, Diderot, and Maria-Theresa of Austria, kept herself 
in contact with the West ( Encyc . Brit., Vol. XIX, p. 71S and 
passim). She chose for her son, weak like his father and later 
the "madman” Czar Paul I [reign, 1796-1801], a German wife. 

The nineteenth century czars were Catherine the Great's 
grandson, Alexander I [reign, 1801-1825 — German wife]; his 
brother, Nicholas I [reign, 1825-1855 — German wife, a Hohen- 
zollem]; his son, Alexander II [reign, 1855-1881 — German wife]; 
his son, Alexander III [reign, 1881-1894 — Danish wife]; and his 
son, Nicholas II [reign, 1894-1917 — German wife], who was mur- 
dered with liis family (1918) after the Communists seized power 
(1917) in Russia. 

Though many of the Romanovs, including Peter I and Cath- 
erine II, had far from admirable characters — a fact well adver- 

tised in American books on the subject — and though some of 
them including Nicholas II were not able rulers, a general 
purpose of the dynasty was to give their land certain of the 
advantages of Western Europe. In the West they characteristi- 
cally sought alliances with one country or another, rather than 
ideological penetration. 

Like their Slavic overlords, the Judaized Khazars of Russia 
had various relationships with Germany. Their numbers from 
time to time, as during the Crusades, received accretions from 
the Jewish communities in Germany — principally into Poland 
and other areas not yet Russian; many of the ancestors of these 
people, however, had previously entered Germany from Slavic 
lands. More interesting than these migrations was the importa- 
tion from Germany of an idea conceived by a prominent Jew of 
solving century-old tension between native majority populations 
and the Jews in their midst. In Germany, while Catherine the 
Great was Empress of Russia, a Jewish scholar and philosopher 
named Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) attracted wide and favor- 
able attention among non-Jews and a certain following among 
Jews. His conception of the barrier between Jew and non-Jew, as 
analyzed by Grayzel (op. cit., p. 543), was that the “Jews had 
erected about themselves a mental ghetto to balance the physical 

Rtissia and the Khazars 


ghetto around them.” Mendelssohn’s objective was to lead the 
Jews "out of this mental ghetto into the wide world of general 
culture — without, however, doing harm to their specifically Jew- 
ish culture.” The movement received the name Haskalah, which 
may be rendered as "enlightenment” Among other things, Men- 
delssohn wished Jew’s in Germany to leam the German language. 

The Jews of Eastern Europe had from early days used cor- 
rupted versions of local vernaculars, written in the Hebrew 
alphabet (see “How Yiddish Came to Be,” Grayzel, op. cit., p. 
456), just as the various vernaculars of Western Europe were 
written in the Latin alphabet, and to further his purpose Men- 
delssohn translated the Pentateuch — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, Deuteronomy — into standard German, using however, 
the accepted Hebrew alphabet (Grayzel, op. cit., p. 543). Thus 
in one stroke he led his readers a step toward Westernization by 
the use of the German language and by offering them, instead 
of the Babylonian Talmud, a portion of scripture recognized by 
both Jew and Christian. 

The Mendelssohn views were developed in Russia in the 
nineteenth century, notably by Isaac Baer Levinsohn (1788- 
1S60), the “Russian Mendelssohn.” Levinsohn was a scholar who, 
with Abraham Harkavy, delved into a field of Jewish history 
little known in the West, namely “the settlement of Jews in 
Russia and their vicissitudes during the dark ages. . . Levinsohn 
was tire first to express the opinion that the Russian Jews hailed 
not from Germany, as is commonly supposed, but from the banks 
of the Volga. This hypothesis, corroborated by tradition, Harkavy 
established as a fact” ( TJte Haskalah Movement in Russia, by 
Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of 
America, 1913, 1914, p. 17). 

The reigns of the nineteenth century Czars showed a fluctua- 
tion of attitudes toward the Jewish “state within a state” ( The 
Haskalah Movement, p. 43). In general, Nicholas I had been less 
lenient than Alexander I tow’ard his intractable non-Christian 
minority, but he took an immediate interest in the movement 
endorsed by the highly respected Levinsolm, for he saw in “Has- 
kalah” an opportunity for possibly breaking down the separatism 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

of the Judaized Khazars. He put in charge of the project of open- 
ing hundreds of Jewish schools a brilliant young Jew, Dr. Max 
Lilienthah From its beginning, however, the Haskalah movement 
had had bitter opposition among Jews in Germany — many of 
whom, including the famous Moses Hess (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit ., 
Vol. VI, pp. 371 ff.), became ardent Jewish nationalists — and in 
Russia the opposition was fanatical. “The great mass of Russian 
Jewry was devoid of all secular learning, steeped in fanaticism, 
and given to superstitious practices” ( Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. 
VI, p. 112), and their leaders, for the most part, had no notion of 
tolerating a project which would lessen or destroy their control. 
These leaders believed correctly that the new education was 
designed to lessen the authority of the Talmud, which was the 
cause, as the Russians saw it, “of the fanaticism and corrupt 
morals of the Jews.” The leaders of the Jews also saw that the 
new schools were a way "to bring the Jews closer to the Russian 
people and the Greek church” (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, 
p. 116). According to Raisin, “the millions of Russian Jews were 
averse to having the government interfere with their inner and 
spiritual life” by “foisting upon them its educational measures. 
The soul of Russian Jewry sensed the danger lurking in the 
imperial scheme” (op. cit., p. 117). Lilienthal was in their eyes 
“a traitor and informer,” and in 1845, to recover a modicum of 
prestige with his people, he “shook the dust of bloody Russia 
from his feet” (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 117). Thus the 
Haskalah movement failed in Russia to break down the separ- 
atism of the Judaized Khazars. 

When Nicholas I died, his son Alexander II [reign, 1S55-1881] 
decided to try a new way of wanning tire Khazar minority to wall- 
ing citizenship in Russia. He granted Ins people, including the 
Khazars, so many liberties that he was called the “Czar Lib- 

By irony, or nemesis, however, his "liberal regime” contrib- 
uted substantially to the downfall of Christian Russia. Despite 
the ill-success of his Uncle Alexander's "measures to effect the 
‘betterment’ of the obnoxious’ Jewish element” (Unio. Jew. 
Encyc., Vol. I, p. 384), he ordered a wholesale relaxation of 

Russia and the Khazars 


oppressive and restraining regulations (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., p. 
124) and Jews w'ere free to attend all schools and universities 
and to travel without restrictions. The new freedom led, however, 
to results the "Liberator” had not anticipated. 

Educated, and free at last to organize nationally, the Judaized 
Khazars in Russia became not merely an indigestible mass in the 
body politic, the characteristic "state within a state,” but a for- 
midable anti-government force. With non-Jew's of nihilistic or 
other radical tendencies — the so-called Russian “intelligentsia” 
— they sought in tire first instance to further their aims by assas- 
sinations ( Modern European History, by Charles Downer Hazen, 
Holt, New York, p. 565). Alexander tried to abate the hostility of 
the “terrorists” by granting more and more concessions, but on 
the day the last concessions were announced “a bomb was thrown 
at his carriage. The carriage was wrecked, and many of his escorts 
were injured. Alexander escaped as by a miracle, but a second 
bomb exploded near him as he was going to aid the injured. He 
was horribly mangled, and died within an hour. Thus perished 
the Czar Liberator” ( Modern European History, p. 567). 

Some of those involved in earlier attempts to assassinate 
Alexander n were of Jewish Khazar background (see The An- 
archists by Ernest Alfred Vizetelly, John Lane, London and New’ 
York, 19X1, p. 66). According to the Universal Jewish Encyclo- 
pedia, the “assassination of Alexander II in which a Jewess had 
played a part” revived a latent “anti-Semitism.” Resentful of pre- 
cautions taken by the murdered Czar’s son and successor, Alex- 
ander III, and also possessing a new world plan, hordes of Jews, 
some of them highly educated in Russian universities, migrated 
to other European countries and to America. The emigration 
continued (see below) under Nicholas II. Many Jews remained 
in Russia, however, for “in 1913 the Jewish population of Russia 
amounted to 6,946,000” ( Unio. Jew. Encyc., Vol. IX, p. 285). 

Various elements of this restless aggressive minority nurtured 
the amazing quadruple aims of international Communism, the 
seizure of power in Russia, Zionism, and continued migration to 
America, with a fixed purpose to retain their nationalistic sep- 
aratism. In many instances, the same individuals were partici- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

pants in two or more phases of the four-fold objective. 

Among the Jews who remained in Russia, which then included 
Lithuania, the Ukraine (A History of the Ukraine, Michael Hru- 
shevsky, Yale University Press, 1941, passim), and much of 
Poland, were the founders of the Russian Bolshevik party: 

In 1897 was founded the Bund, the union of Jewish work- 
ers in Poland and Lithuania. . . They engaged in revolu- 
tionary activity' upon a large scale, and their energy made 
them the spearhead of the Party' (Article on "Communism" 
by Harold J. Lasld, Encyc. Brit., Vol. Ill, pp 824-827). 

The name Bolsheviki means majority' (from Russian bolshe, 
tile larger) and commemorates the fact that at the Brussels-Lon- 
don conference of the party in late 1902 and early 1903, the vio- 
lent Marxist program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote, 
the less violent minority or "Menshevilci” Marxists fading finally 
from the picture after Stalin’s triumph in October, 1917. It has 
been also stated that the term Bolshevik refers to the ‘larger” or 
more violent program of the majority faction. After 1918 the 
Bolsheviki called their organization tire Communist Party. 

The Zionist Jews were another group that laid its plan in 
Russia as a part of the new reorientation of Russian Jewry after 
the collapse of Haskalah and the assassination (1881) of Alex- 
ander II. “On November 6, 1884, for tire first time in history, a 
Jewish international assembly was held at Kattowitz, near the 
Russian frontier, where representatives from all classes and dif- 
ferent countries met and decided to colonize Palestine. . ( The 

Haskalah Movement in Russia, p. 285). For a suggestion of the 
solidarity of purpose between the Jewish Bund, which was the 
core of the Communist Party, and early Zionism, see Grayzcl 
(op. cit., p. 662). “Henceforth a heightened sense of race-con- 
sciousness takes the place formerly held by reh'gion and is soon 
to develop into a concrete nationalism with Zion as its goal” 
(Graetz-Raisin, Vol. VI, p. 168). 

In Russia and abroad in the late nineteenth century', not only 
Bundists but other Khazar Jews had been attracted to the writ- 
ings of Karl Marx (1818-1883), partly', it seems, because he was 

Russia and the KJiazars 


Jewish in origin. “On both paternal and maternal sides Karl 
Marx was descended from rabbinical families” (Univ. Jew. En- 
cyc., Vol. VII, p. 289). 

The Marxian program of drastic controls, so repugnant to the 
free western mind, was no obstacle to tire acceptance of Marxism 
by many Khazar Jews, for the Babylonian Talmud under which 
they lived had taught them to accept authoritarian dictation on 
everything from their immorality to their trade practices. Since 
the Talmud contained more than 12,000 controls, the regimenta- 
tion of Marxism was acceptable — provided the Khazar politician, 
like the Talmudic rabbi, exercised the power of the dictatorship. 

Under Nicholas II, there was no abatement of the regulations 
designed, after the murder of Alexander II, to curb the anti- 
government activities of Jews; consequently, the “reaction to 
those excesses was Jewish support of the Bolsheviks. . (Univ. 
Jew. Encyc., Vol. I, p. 286. ) The way to such support was easy 
since the predecessor organization of Russian Communism was 
the Jewish “Bund.” Thus Marxian Communism, modified for ex- 
pediency', became an instrument for the violent seizure of power. 
The Communist Jews, together with revolutionaries of Russian 
stock, were sufficiently numerous to give the venture a promise 
of success, if attempted at the right time. After the rout of the 
less violent faction in 1903, Lenin remained the leader. 

The blow fell in the fateful year, 1917, when Russia was 
staggering under defeat by Germany' — a year before Germany 
in turn staggered to defeat under the triple blows of Britain, 
France, and the United States. “The great hour of freedom struck 
on the 15th of March, 1917,” when “Czar Nicholas’s train was 
stopped” and he was told "that his rule was at an end. . . Israel, 
in Russia, suddenly found itself lifted out of its oppression and 
degradation” (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 209). 

At this moment Lenin appeared on the scene, after an absence 
of nine years (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIII, p. 912). The Germans, not 
realizing that he would be anything more than a trouble-maker 
for their World War I enemy, Russia, passed him and his party 
(exact number disputed — about 200?) in a sealed train from 
Switzerland to the Russian border. In Lenin’s sealed train, “Out 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

of a list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, 3 Georgian, 4 
Armenian, 1 German, and 128 Jewish" ( The Surrender of an 
Empire , Nesta H. Webster, Boswell Printing and Publishing 
Company, Ltd., 10 Essex St., London, W.C. 2, 1931, p. 77). "At 
about the same time, Trotsky arrived from the United States, 
followed by over 300 Jews from the East End of New York and 
joined up with the Bolshevik Party” (op. cit., p. 73). 

Thus under Lenin, whose birth-name was Ulianov and whose 
racial antecedents are uncertain, and under Leon Trotsky, a 
Jew, whose birth-name was Bronstein, a small number of highly- 
trained Jews from abroad, along with Russian Judaized Khazars 
and non-Jewish captives to the Marxian ideology, were able to 
make themselves masters of Russia, "Individual revolutionary 
leaders of Jewish origin - such as Trotsky, Zinoniev, Kamanev, 
and Sverdlov — played a conspicuous part in the revolution of 
November, 1917, which enabled the Bolshevists to take posses- 
sion of the state apparatus” ( Univ . Jew. Encyc., Vol. IX, p. 668). 
Here and there in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia other Jews 
are named as co-founders of Russian Communism, but not Lenin 
and Stalin. Both of these, however, are said by some writers to be 
half-Jewish. Whatever the racial antecedents of their top man, 
the first Soviet commissariats were largely staffed with Jews. The 
Jewish position in the Communist movement was well under- 
stood in Russia. "The White Armies which opposed the Bolshevik 
government linked Jews and Bolsheviks as common enemies” 
(Univ. Jew Encyc., Vol. I, p. 336). 

Those interested in the ratio of Jews to others in the govern- 
ment in the early days of Communist rule in Russia should, if 
possible, see Les derniers jours des Romanof (The Last Days of 
the Romanovs) by Robert Wilton, long the Russian correspond- 
ent of the London Times. A summary of its vital passages is in- 
cluded in the "foreword to Third Edition” of The Mystical Body 
of Christ in the Modern World (Brown and Nolan, Limited, 
Waterford, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, London, 1939, 1947) by Rev. 
Denis Fahey, a well-known Irish professor of philosophy and 
Church history. Professor Fahey gives names and nationality of 
tile members of the Council of Peoples Commissars, the Central 

Russia and the Khazars 


Executive Committee, and the Extraordinary Commissions, and 
in summary quotes from Wilton as follows: 

According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out 
of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State . . . 
there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukranians, 11 Arme- 
nians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 

3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. 

As the decades passed by — after the fateful year 1917 — Juda- 
ized Khazars kept a firm hand on the helm of the government in 
the occupied land of Russia. In due time they built a bureaucracy 
to their hearts’ desire. The government-controlled Communist 
press “issued numerous and violent denunciations of anti-semitic 
episodes, either violence or discriminations.” Also, “in 1935 a 
court nded that anti-semitism in Russia was a penal offense” 
(Univ. Jew Encyc., Vol. I, p. 3S6). Among top-flight leaders 
prominent in the middle of the twentieth century. Stalin, Kagan- 
ovich, Beria, Molotov, and Litvinoff all have Jewish blood, or are 
married to Jewesses. The latter circumstance should not be 
overlooked, because from Nero’s Poppa3a ( Encyclopedia Italiana, 
Vol. XXVII, p. 932; also, The Works of Flavius Josephus, 
translated by William Whiston, David McKay, Philadelphia, n.d., 
pp. 8, 612, 616) to the Montreal chemist’s woman friend in the 
Canadian atomic espionage trials ( Report of the Rot/al Commis- 
sion , Government Printing Office, Ottawa, Canada, 1946, $1,00) 
the influence of a certain type of wife — or other closely asso- 
ciated woman — has been of utmost significance. Nero and Pop- 
pma may be allowed to sleep — if their crimes permit — but Sec- 
tion III, 11, entitled “RAYMOND BOYER, Montreal,” in the 
Report of the Canadian Royal Commission should be read in full 
by all who want facts on the subject of the corruption of scien- 
tists, and others working on government projects. In the Soviet 
Embassy records, turned over to Canadian authorities by Ivor 
Gouzenko, was Col. Zabotin’s notebook which contained the fol- 
lowing entries (pp. 375 and 397 respectively): 


Frenchman. Noted chemist, about 40 years of age. Works in 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

McGill University, Montreal. Is the best of the specialists on 
W on the American Continent. Gives full information on 
explosives and chemical plants. Very rich. He is afraid to 
work. (Gave the formula of RDX, up to the present there 
was no evaluation from the boss.) 

1. Freda 

Jewess — works as a co-vvorker in the International Bureau of 

A lady friend of the Professor. 

In view of the facts furnished above as to the racial composi- 
tion of the early Communist bureaucracy, it is perhaps not sur- 
prising that a large portion of the important foreign efforts of 
the present government of Russia are entrusted to Jews. 

This is especially notable in the list of current or recent exer- 
cisers of Soviet power in tire satellite lands of Eastern Europe. 
Anna Rabinsohn Paukcr, Dictator of Rumania; Matyas Rakosi, 
Dictator of Hungary; Jacob Berman, Dictator of Poland; D. M. 
Manuilsky, Dictator of the Ukraine; and many other persons 
highly placed in the governments of the several Eastern Euro- 
pean countries are all said to be members of this new Royal 
Race of Russia. 

Of Eastern European origin are the leaders of late nineteenth 
century and twentieth century political Zionism which flowered 
from the already recorded beginnings at Kattowitz in 1884. Bom 
at Budapest, Hungary, was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), author 
(1896) of Der Judenstatt (The Jew's’ State), who presided over 
the “Zionist Congress,” which “took place at Basel, Switzerland, 
on August 29, 30, and 31, 1897” ( Units. Jew. Encyc., Vol. II, p. 
102). Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the head of political Zionism at the 
moment of its recourse to violence, was born in Plonsk, Poland. 
Since these top leaders are Eastern Europeans, it is not sur- 
prising that most of the recent immigrants into Palestine are of 
Soviet and satellite origin and that their weapons have been 
largely from the Soviet Union and from Soviet-controlled Czecho- 
slovakia (see below, Chapter VI). 

As a number of writers have pointed out, political Zionism 

Russia and the Khazars 


entered its violent phase after the discovery of the incredibly 
vast mineral wealth of Palestine. According to “Zionists Mislead- 
ing World with Untruths for Palestine Conquest,” a full-page 
article inserted as an advertisement in the New York Herald- 
Tribune (January 14, 1947), “an independent Jewish state in 
Palestine was the only certain method by which Zionists could 
acquire complete control and outright ownership of the proven 
Five Trillion Dollar ($5,000,000,000,000) chemical and mineral 
wealth of the Dead Sea.” The long documented article is signed 
by R. M. Sclioendorf, “Representative of Cooperating Americans 
of the Christian Faiths”; by Habib I. Katibah, “Representative of 
Cooperating Americans of Arab Ancestry”; and by Benjamin H. 
Freedman, “Representative of Cooperating Americans of the 
Jewish Faith,” and is convincing. Irrespective, however, of the 
value of the Dead Sea minerals, the oil flow of Middle Eastern 
wells is something unbelievable to those familiar with slow-flow- 
ing American wells. Also in 1951, oil was “discovered” in the 
Negeb Desert, an area for which the “Israeli” authorities had so 
much fervor that they seized it (see Chapter VI, b, below). 

The dominance of the motive of self-aggrandizement in polit- 
ical Zionism has been affirmed and denied; but it is difficult for 
an observer to see any possible objective apart from mineral 
wealth or long range grand strategy, including aggression (see 
Chapters VI and IX, below), in a proposal to make a nation out 
of an agriculturally poor, already overpopulated territory the size 
of Vermont. The intention of aggression at the expense of Moslem 
peoples, particularly in the direction of Iraq and Iran, is sug- 
gested also by the fact that the Eastern European Jews, adher- 
ents to the Babylonian Talmud, bad long turned their thoughts 
to the lands where their sages lived and where most of the native 
Jewish population had embraced the Moslem faith. Any possible 
Zionist religious motive such as the hope of heaven, which Bred 
the zeal of the Crusaders, is apparently ruled out by the nature 
of Judaism, as it is generally understood. “The Jewish religion is 
a way of life and has no formulated creed, or articles of faith, 
the acceptance of which brings redemption or salvation to the 
believer. . (opening words, p. 763, of the section on “Doc- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

trines ,” in Religious Bodies: 1936, Vol. II, Part I, Denominations 
A to J, U. S. Department of Commerce, Jesse H. Jones, Secretary, 
Bureau of Census, Superintendent of Documents, Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D. C.). 

The secret or underground overseas efforts of Khazar-domi- 
nated Russia apparently have been entrusted principally to Jews. 
This is especially tine of atomic espionage. The Report of the 
Royal Commission of Canada, already referred to, shows that 
Sam Carr (Cohen), organizer for all Canada; Fred Rose (Rosen- 
berg), organizer for French Canada, and member of the Cana- 
dian Parliament from a Montreal constituency; and Germina 
(or Hermina) Rabinowich, in charge of liaison with U. S. Com- 
munists, were all bom in Russia or satellite lands. In this con- 
nection, it is important to stress the fact that the possession of a 
Western name does not necessarily imply Western European 
stock. In fact, the maneuver of name-changing frequently dis- 
guises an individual’s stock or origin. Thus the birth-name of 
John Gates, editor of the Communist Daily Worker was Israel 
Regenstreif. Other name changers among the eleven Communists 
found guilty by a New York jury in October, 1949, included Gil 
Green — bom Greenberg; Gus Hall — bom Halberg; and Carl 
Winter — bom Weissberg. (For details on these men and the 
others, see the article, “The Trial of the Eleven Communists,” 
by Sidney Shalett, Reader’s Digest , August, 1950, pp. 59-72.) 
Other examples of name-changing can be cited among political 
writers, army officers, and prominent officials in the executive 
agencies and departments in Washington. Parenthetically, the 
maneuver of acquiring a name easily acceptable to the majority 
was very widely practiced by the aliens prominent in the seizure 
of Russia for Communism, among the name-changers being Lenin 
(Ulianov), Trotsky (Bron stein), and Stalin ( Dzugashvili ) , the 
principal founders of state Communism. 

The United States Government refused Canada’s invitation 
early in 1946 to cooperate in Canada’s investigation of atomic 
spies, but in 1950 when (despite “red herring” talk of the Chief 
Executive) our atomic spy suspects began to be apprehended, 
the first was Harry Gold, then Abraham Brothman, and Miriam 

Russia and the Khazars 


Moskowitz. Others were M. Sobell, David Greenglass, Julius Ros- 
enberg, and Mrs. Ethel Rosenberg (not to be confused with Mrs. 
Anna Rosenberg). Various sentences were given. Mr. and Mrs. 
Rosenberg received the death penalty (See Atom Treason, by 
Frank Britton, Box 15745, Crenshaw Station, Los Angeles 8, 
California). As of early May, 1952, however, the sentence had 
not been carried out and a significant portion of the Jewish 
press was campaigning to save the Rosenbergs. Referring to 
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Samuel B. Gacli, Editor-in-Chief 
and Publisher of the California Jewish Voice (“Largest Jewish 
Circulation in the West”) wrote as follows in his issue of April 
25, 1952: “We deplore the sentence against the two Jews and 
despise the cowardly Jewish judge who passed same. . . .” In 
March, 1951, Dr. William Perl of the Columbia University 
Physics Department was arrested "on four counts of perjury in 
connection with the crumbling Soviet atomic spy ring. . . Perl 
whose father was bom in Russia, . . . had his name changed from 
Utterperl [Mutterpcrl?] to Perl” in 1945 (Washington Times- 
Ilerald, March 15, 1951). For further details on these persons 
and others, see “Atomic Traitors,” by Congressman Fred Busbey 
of Illinois in the June, 1951, number of National Republic. 
Finally, tire true head of Communism in America was found not 
to be the publicly announced head, but the Jew, Gerhard t Eisler, 
who, upon detection, “escaped” from America on the Polish S. S. 
“Batory,” to a high position in the Soviet Government of East 
Germany (Communist Activities Among Aliens and National 
Groups , part III, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 
1950, p. A 121). 

Very pertinent to the subject under consideration is a state- 
ment entitled “Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction,” made in the 
Senate of the United States on January’ 6, 1950, by Senator Pat 
McCarran, Democrat of Nevada, Chairman of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee. Senator McCarran said in part: “Let it be remembered 
that the Attorney General of the United States recently testified 
that an analysis of 4,984 of the more militant members of the 
Communist Party in the United States showed that 91.4 percent 
of the total were of foreign stock or were married to persons of 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

foreign stock.” 

With more than nine-tenths of our “more militant” Commu- 

nists thus recruited from or allied to “foreign stock" and with 
that “stock” totaling perhaps not more than 10,000,000 or one- 
fifteenth of our nation’s population, a little recourse to mathe- 
matics will suggest that the employment of an Eastern European 
or other person of recent alien extraction or connection is one 
hundred and fifty times more likely to yield a traitor than is the 
employment of a person of native stock! 

An “authoritative” Jewish point of view toward Soviet lltissiu 
is explained in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in the con- 
cluding paragraphs on Karl Marx. According to this source, Jews 
“recognize the experience of the Soviet Union, home of 6,000,000 
Jews, as testimony of the Marxist position on the question of 
national and racial equality.” The Encyclopedia comments fur- 
ther on the “striking fact that the one country which professes 
official allegiance to Marxian teachings is the one where anti- 
Semitism has been outlawed and its resurgence rendered impos- 
sible by the removal of social and economic inequalities” (Vol. 
VIII, p. 390). In The Jewish People Face the Post-War World by 
Alexander Bittelman (Morning Frciheit Association, 35 East 
12th Street, New York 3, N. Y., 1945, p. 19) the affection of a 
considerable body of American Jews for the Soviet Union is 
expressed dramatically: 

If not for die Red Army, there would be no Jews in 
Europe today, nor in Palestine, nor in Africa; and in the 
United States, the length of our existence would be counted 
ISH PEOPLE. Therefore, let the American Jewish masses 
never forget our historic debt to die Saviour of the Jewish 
people — the Soviet Union. 

Be it noted, however, that Mr. Bittelman admits indirectly 
that he is not speaking for all American Jews, particularly when 
he assails as “reactionary” the “non-democratic forces in Jewish 
life . . . such as the Sulzbergers, Rosenwalds, and Lazarons” 
(p. 9). In addition to ideology, another factor in the devotion to 
their old homelands of so many of the newer American Jews of 
Eastern European source is kinship. According to The American 

Russia and the Khazars 


Zionist Handbook, 68 to 70% of United States Jews have relations 
m Poland and the Soviet Union. 

Quite in harmony with the Bittleman attitude toward the 
Soviet was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission that 
Soviet Russia exploits fully the predilection of Jews toward Com- 
munism: It is significant that a number of documents from the 
Russian Embassy specifically note ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewess’ in entries on 
their relevant Canadian agents or prospective agents, showing 
that the Russian Fifth Column leaders attached particular sig- 

n,ltea„«, to this matter" (The Report of the Royal Commission, 
p. bZ). 

In view of the above-quoted statement of a writer for the 
great New York publication, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 
w'hich is described on its title-page as “autliorative,” and in view 
of the findings of the Canadian Royal Commission, not to men- 
tion other facts and testimonies, it w-ould seem that no one should 
be surprised that certain United States Jews of Eastern Euro- 
pean origin or influence have transmitted atomic or other secrets 
to the Soviet Union. Those wffio are caught, of course, must suffier 
the rate of spies, as would happen to American espionage agents 
abroad; but, in the opinion of the author, the really guilty parties 
m the Untied Slates are those Americans of native stock who for 
their own evil purposes, placed the pro-Soviet individuals in posi- 
tions where they could steal or connive at the stealing of Ameri- 
can secrets of atomic warfare. This guilt, which in view of the 
temble likely results of atomic espionage is really blood-guilt 
cannot be sidestepped and should not be overlooked bv the 
American people. 1 

Tlie presence of so many high-placed spies in the United 
States prompts a brief reference to our national habit (a more 
accurate term than policy) in regard to immigration. On Decem- 
ber 2 1823, President Monroe proclaimed, in the famous Doctrine 
which bears Ins name, that the American government would not 
allow continental European powers to “extend their system” in 
the United States. At that time and until the last two decades of 
the nineteenth centuiy, immigration brought us almost exclu- 
sively European people whose ideals were those of Western 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Christian civilization; these people became helpers in subduing 
and settling our vast frontier area; they wished to conform to 
rather than modify or supplant the body of traditions and ideals 

summed up in the word America, 

After 1880, however, our immigration shifted sharply to 
include millions of persons from Southern and Eastern Europe. 
Almost all of these people were less sympathetic than predecessor 
immigrants to the government and the ideals of the United 
States and a very large portion of them were non-Christians who 
had no intention whatever of accepting the ideals of Western 
Christian civilization, but had purposes of their own. These pur- 
poses were accomplished not by direct military invasion, as 
President Monroe feared, but covertly by infiltration, propa- 
ganda, and electoral and financial pressure (Chapters I, III, IV, 
V VI, VII). The average American remained unaware and 


Among those who early foresaw the problems to be created 
by our new immigrants was General Eisenhowers immediate 
predecessor as President of Columbia University. In a small but 
extremely valuable book. The American As lie Is, President Nich- 
olas Murray Butler in 1908 called attention to '‘the fact that 
Christianity in some one of its many forms is a dominant part of 
the American nature ” Butler, then at the zenith of his intellec- 
tual power, expressed fear that our capacity to subdue and 
assimilate the alien elements brought ... by immigration may 
soon be exhausted.” He concluded accordingly that "The dan- 
gers which confront America will come, if at all, from within. 

Statistics afford ample reasons for President Butler’s fears. 
"The new immigration was comprised preponderantly of three 
elements: the Italians, the Slavs, and the Jews” ( The Immigration 
and Naturalization Systems of the United States, Government 
Printing office, Washington, D. C., p. 236). The Italians and the 
Slavs were less assimilable than immigrants from Northern and 
Western Europe, and tended to congregate instead of distrib- 
uting themselves over the whole country as the earlier Northern 
European immigrants had usually done. 

The assimilation of Italians and Slavs was helped, however, 

Russia and the Khazars 


by their belonging to the same parent Indo-Germanic racial 
stock as the English-German-Irish majority, and above all by 
their being Christians — mostly Roman Catholics — and therefore 
finding numerous co-religionists not only among fully American- 
ized second and third generation Irish Catholics but among old 
stock Anglo-American Catholics descending from Colonial days. 
Quite a few persons of Italian and Slavic stock were or became 
Protestants, chiefly Baptists — among them being ex-Govemor 
Charles Poletti of New York and ex-Govemor Harold Stassen of 
Minnesota. The new Italian and Slavic immigrants and their chil- 
dren soon began to marry among the old stock. In a protracted 
reading of an Italian language American newspaper, die author 
noted that approximately half of all recorded marriages of Ital- 
ians were to persons with non-Italian names. 

Thus in one way or another the new Italian and Slavic immi- 
grants began to merge into the general American pattern. This 
happened to some extent everywhere and was notable in areas 
where the newcomers were not congregated — as in certain urban 
and mining areas — but were dispersed among people of native 
stock. With eventual complete assimilation by no means impos- 
sible, there was no need of a national conference of Americans 
and Italians or of Americans and Slavs to further the interests of 
those minorities. 

With the new Jewish immigrants, however, the developments 
were strikingly different — and quite in line with the fears of 
President Butler. The handful of Jews, mostly Sephardic (Web- 
ster’s New International Dictionary, 1934, p. 2281) and German, 
already in this country (about 280,000 in 1877, Religious Bodies, 
op. cit., above), were not numerous enough to contribute cul- 
tural guidance to the newcomers (see Graetz-Raisin, Vol. VI, 
Chapter IV, "American Continent,” A "The Sephardic and Ger- 
man Periods," B “The Russian Period”). These newcomers arrived 
in vast hordes — especially from territory under the sovereignty 
of Russia, the total number of legally recorded immigrants 
from that country between 1881 and 1920 being 3,237,079 
( The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United 
States, p. 817), most of them Jews. Many of those Jews are now 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

referred to as Polish Jews because they came from that portion 
of Russia which had been the kingdom of Poland prior to the 
“partitions” of 1772-1795 ( Modern History , by Carl L. Becker, 
Silver Burdett Company, New York, p. 138) and was the Repub- 
lic of Poland between World War I and World War II. Accord- 
ingly New York City's 2,500,000 or more Jews (op. cit., p. 242) 
are sometimes said to be largely Polish Jews (op. cit., p. 240). 

Thus by sheer weight of numbers, as well as by aggressive- 
ness, the newcomer Jews from Eastern Europe pushed into the 
background the more or less Westernized Jews, who had migrated 
or whose ancestors had migrated to America prior to I860 and 
had become for the most part popular and successful merchants 
with no inordinate interest in politics. In striking contrast, the 
Eastern European Jew made himself “a power to be reckoned 
with in the professions, the industries, and the political parties” 
(Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 344). 

The overwhelming of the older Americanized Jews is well 
portrayed in The Jewish Dilemma by Elmer Berger (The Devin- 
Adair Company, New York, 1945). Of the early American Jews, 
Berger writes: “Most of these first 200,000 came from Germany. 
They integrated themselves completely” (op. cit., p. 232). This 
integration was not difficult; for many persons of Jewish religion 
in Western Europe in the nineteenth century not only had no 
racial or ethnic connection with the Khazars, but were not sep- 
aratists or Jewish nationalists. The old contentions of their ances- 
tors with their Christian neighbors in Western Europe had been 
largely overlooked on both sides by the beginning of the nine- 
teenth century, and nothing stood in the way of their full inte- 
gration into national life. The American kinsmen of these West- 
ernized Jews were similar in outlook. 

But after 1880 and “particularly in the first two decades of 
the twentieth century, immigration to the United States from 
Eastern Europe increased rapidly.” The Eastern European immi- 
grant Jews “brought with them the wom out concept of a Jewish 
people’” (op. cit., p. 233). Soon these newcomers of nationalist 
persuasion actually exerted influence over the old and once 
anti-nationalist organization of American Reform Judaism. “In 

Russia and the Khazars 


the winter of 1941-’42 the Central Conference of American 
Rabbis had endorsed the campaign to organize a Jewish Army. 
The event indicated the capitulation of the leadership of Reform 
Judaism to Jewish Nationalism.” Many American-minded Jews 
protested, but “the voices w'ere disorganized and therefore could 
be safely ignored” (op. cit., p. 242). American Jewry “had suc- 
cumbed to the relentless pressure of the Zionists.” 

With the domination of American Jew'ry by Judaized Kha- 
zars and those who travel with them, the position of American 
Jews who wished to be Americans became most unhappy. The 
small but significant group which met at Atlantic City in June, 
1942, to lay the foundations for an organization of “Americans 
whose religion is Judaism,” were at once pilloried. “Charges” of 
being “ ‘traitors,’ ‘Quislings,’ ‘betrayers’ were thundered” from the 
synagogues of America and “filled the columns of the Jewish 
press” (op. cit,, p. 244). Many were silenced or won over by the 
pressure and the abuse — but not all. Those brave Jews who are 
persecuted because they are not hostile to the American w’ay of 
life should not be confused with those Jew's who persecute them, 
as Mr. Berger shows, but should on the other hand receive the 
sympathy of all persons who are trying to save Christian civili- 
zation in America. 

Since the predominant new Jew's consider themselves a 
superior people (Race and Nationality as Factors in American 
Life, by Henry Pratt Fairchild, The Ronald Press Company, New' 
York, 1947, p. 145), and a separate nationality (op. cit., p. 140), 
assimilation appears now' to be out of the question. America now 
has virtually a nation within the nation, and an aggresive cul- 
ture-conscious nation at that. 

The stream of Eastern Europeans w'as diminished in volume 
during World War I, but was at flood level again in 1920. At last 
die Congress became sufficiently alarmed to initiate action. The 
House Committee on Immigration, in its report on the bill that 
later became the quota law of 1921, reported: 

There is a limit to our power of assimilation . . . the pro- 
cesses of assimilation and amalgamation are slow and diffi- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

cult. With the population of the broken parts of Europe 
headed this way in ever-increasing numbers, why not per- 
emptorily check" the stream with this temporary measure, and 
in the meantime try the unique and novel experiment of 
enforcing all of the immigration laws on our statutes? . . - 

Accordingly, the 67th Congress “passed the first quota law, 
which was approved on May 19, 1921, limiting the number of any 
nationality entering the United States to 3 percent of the foreign- 
bom of that nationality who lived here in 1910. Under this law, 
approximately 350,000 aliens were permitted to enter each year, 
mostly from Northern and Western Europe” (The Immigration 
and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 56). 

The worry of tire Congress over unassimilable aliens continued 
and the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of 
the Sixty-eighth Congress reported that it was “necessary- to the 
successful future of our nation to preserve the basic strain of our 
population” and continued (op. cit., p. 60) as follows: 

Since it is tire axiom of political science that a govern- 
ment not imposed by external force is the visible expression 
of the ideals, standards, and social viewpoint of the people 
over which it rules, it is obvious that a change in the char- 
acter or composition of the population must inevitably result 
in the evolution of a form of government consonant with the 
base upon which it rests. If, therefore, the principle of indi- 
vidual liberty, guarded by ft constitutional government cre- 
ated on this "continent nearly a century and a half ago, is to 
endure, the basic strain of our population must be maintained 
and our economic standards preserved. 

... the American people do not concede the right of any 
foreign group in the United States, or government abroad, 
to demand a participation in our possessions, tangible or in- 
tangible, or to dictate the character of our legislation. 

The new law “changed the quota basis from 1910 to 1890, 
reduced tire quotas from 3 to 2 percent, provided for the estab- 
lishment of permanent quotas on the basis of national origin, and 
placed the burden of proof on the alien with regard to his admis- 

Russia and the Khazars 


sibility and the legality of his residence in the United States.” It 
was passed by the Congress on May 15, and signed by President 
Calvin Coolidge on May- 26, 1924. The new quota system was 
still more favorable relatively to the British Isles and Germany 
and other countries of Northern and Western Europe and 
excluded “persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by 
force or violence of the government of the United States.” Unfor- 
tunately-, within ten years, this salutary- law was to be largely 
nullified (see Chapters VI and VII, below) by misinterpretation 

of its intent and bv continued scandalous maladministration, a 

principal worry- of the Congress (as shown above) in 1921 and 
continuously since (op. cit., p. 65 and passim). 

By birth and by immigration either clandestine or in violation 
of the intent of the “national origins” law of 1924, the Jewish 
population of the U. S. increased rapidly. The following official 
Census Bureau statement is of interest: “In 1877 there were at 
least 277 congregations in the country and 230,000 Jews; in 1890, 
533 congregations and probably 475,000 Jews; in 1906, 1700 con- 
gregations and about 1,775,000 Jews; in 1916, 1900 congregations 
and about 3,300,000 Jews; in 1926, 3,118 permanent congrega- 
tions and 4,081,000 Jews; and in 1936, 3,728 congregations and 
4,641,184 Jews residing in the cities, towns and villages in which 
the congregations were located” ( Religious Bodies, p. 763). On 
other religions, the latest government statistics are mostly for 
the year 1947, but for Jews the 1936 figure remains (The Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Systems of the United States , p. 849). 
As to the total number of Jews in the United States the govern- 
ment has no exact figures, any precise figures beyond a vague 
“over five million” being impossible because of incomplete records 
and illegal immigration. The Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate (op. cit., p. 842), however, accepts the World Almanac 
figure of 15,713,638 Jews of religious affiliation in the world 
and summarizes thus: “statistics indicate that over 50 percent 
of the World Jewish population is now residing in the Western 
Hemisphere” (op. cit., p. 21), i.e., at least 8,000,000. Since some 
three-fourths of a million Jews live in other North and South 
American countries besides the United States, the number of 
Jews known to be in the United States may be placed at a mini- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

mum of about 7,250,000. Jews unaffiliated with organizations 
whose members are counted, illegal entrants, etc., may place 
the total number in the neighborhood of 10,000,000. This likely 
figure would justify the frequently heard statement that more 
than a half of the Jews of the world are in the United States. 

Percentage-wise this is the government summary (op. cit., p. 
241) of Jewish population in the United States: 

In 1937, Jews constituted less than 4 percent of the Ameri- 
can people, but during the 7-year period following (1937- 
43), net Jewish immigration to the United States ranged 
between 25 and 77 percent of total net immigration to this 
country. For the 36-year period, 1908-43, net Jewish immi- 
gration constituted 14 percent of total. The population of the 
United States has increased three-fold since 1877, while the 
Jewish population has increased twenty-one-fold during the 
same period. 

The above government figures require elucidation. The fig- 
ures include only those Jews connected with an organized Jewish 
congregation and, as a corollary, exclude the vast number of 
Jews, illegal entrants and others, who are not so connected, and 
hence not officially listed as Jews. The stated increase of Jews htj 
2100 percent since 1877 is thus far too srnall because non-Con- 
gregntional Jews are not counted. Moreover, since the increase of 
300 per cent in the total population includes known Jews, who 
increased at the rate of 2100 percent, the increase in population of 
non-Jews is far less than the 800 percent increase of the total 

This powerful and rapidly growing minority — closely knit 
and obsessed with its own objectives which are not those of 
Western Christian civilization — will in subsequent chapters be 
discussed along with other principal occupants of the stage of 
public affairs in America during the early 1950’s. Details will 
come as a surprise to many readers, who are the unwitting vic- 
tims of censorship (Chapter V, below). Valuable for its light on 
the global projects of political Zionism, with especial reference to 
Africa, is Douglas Reed’s Somewhere South of Suez (Devin-Adair 
Company, New York, 1951). After mentioning that the “‘secret 

Russia and the Khazars 


ban” against publishing the truth on “Zionist Nationalism,” which 
he holds “to be allied in its roots to Soviet Communism,” has 
grown in his adult lifetime “from nothing into something 
approaching a law of lese majesty at some absolute court of the 
dark past,” Mr. Reed states further that "the Zionist Nationalists 
are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries 
of the remaining West!” He concludes further that "American 
Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their colleagues,” 
bow to Zionism as if venerating a shrine. 

The subject-matter of a book can be best determined not by 
its preface but by its index. It is believed that an examination 
of the index of The Iron Curtain Over America will show a 
unique completeness in the listing of names and subjects bearing 
upon the present peril of our country. In brief, The Iron Curtain 
Over America presents in compressed detail - along with other 
matters - the problems created in the United States by a powerful 
minority possessed of an ideology alien to our traditions and fired 
by an ambition which threatens to involve us in the ruin of a 
third world-wide war. The next chapter deals with the above- 
board infiltration of Judaized Khazars, and other persons of the 
same ideology, into the United States Democratic Party. 

Chapter III 


The triumphant Khazars, aided by other “converts” to Com- 
munism, strengthened their grasp on prostrate Russia by a suc- 
cession of “purges in which many millions of Russians lost their 
lives, either by immediate murder or in the slow terror of slave 
labor camps. These purges do not concern us here except as a 
sample of what Soviet rule would bring to America, namely, the 
slaying of 15,000,000 persons on a list already prepared by name 
and category (statement to the author by a former-high ranking 
international Communist who has deserted Stalinism ). The 
lecturer. Matt Cvetic, a former F.B.I. undercover agent, gives, 
more recently, a much higher figure; he states that almost all 
men and women over thirty, having been found too old for 
“re-education,” would be slaughtered. For details, write to Borger 
News-Herald, Borger, Texas, asking reprint of “We Owe a Debt” 
(April 16, 1952) by J. C. Phillips. 

Even as they subjected the Russian people to a rule of terror, 
the new rulers^ of Russia promptly and effectively penetrated 
the countries of Western Europe and also Canada and (as shown 
in Chapter II) the United States. For their fateful choice of our 
country as a goal of their major though not yet completely and 
finally successful endeavor, there were several reasons. 

In the first place, with its mutually advantageous capital- 
labor relations, its enormous productivity, and its high standard 
of living, the United States of America was an existing visible 
refutation of the black Soviet lie that their Communist dictator- 
ship did more than our Republic for the workingman. The idea 
that the "capitalistic” democracies (Britain and America) were 
formidable obstacles to the spread of Communism and had to be 
destroyed was expressed many times by Soviet leaders and nota- 
bly by Stalin in his great address (Moscow, March 10, 1939) to 
the 18th Congress of the Communist Party. This elaborate official 


The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 


statement of Soviet policy was made before the outbreak of 
World Wor II, and nearly three years before our involvement, 
and was trumpeted rather than hidden under a bushel. It can 
therefore be safely predicated that our State Department, with 
its numerous staffs, offices, bureaus, and divisions, was promptly 
aware of the contents of this speech and of the Soviet goal of 
overthrowing our “capitalist democracy.” 

The second reason for large scale Communist exploitation of 
the United States was our traditional lack of any laws prohibiting 
or regulating immigration into the United States and our negli- 
gence or politics in enforcing immigration laws when they had 
been passed (Chapter II, above). “The illegal entry of aliens into 
the United States is one of the most serious and difficult problems 
confronting the Immigration and Naturalization Service. . . Since 
the end of World War II, the problem of illegal entry has 
increased tremendously. . , There is ample evidence that there is 
an alarmingly large number of aliens in the United States in an 
illegal status. Under the alien registration act of 1940 some 
5,000,000 aliens were registered” ( The Immigration and Naturali- 
zation Systems of the United States, pp. G29, 630), 

The third principal reason for the Communist exploitation of 
the United States was the absence of any effective policy regard- 
ing resident foreigners even when their activities are directed 
toward the overthrow of the government. Thus in 1950 several 
hundreds of thousands of foreigners, among the millions ille- 
gally in this country, were arrested and released for want of 
adequate provisions for deporting them. 

As shown in Chapter II, above, persons of Khnzar background 
or traditions had entered the United States in large numbers in 
the waves of immigration between 1880 and the outbreak of 
World War I in 1914. The Soviet seizure of Russia took place in 
1917, however, and the hey-day for Communist-inclined immi- 
grants from Eastern Europe was the five-year period between 
the end of World War I (1919) and the passage of the 1924 law 
restricting immigration. Recorded immigrants to this country in 
that brief span of time amounted to approximately three million 
and large numbers of the newcomers were from Eastern Europe. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Most significantly, with Communism in power in Russia, many 
of the new immigrants were not only ideologically hostile to the 
Western Christian civilization of which America was the finest 
development, but were actual agents of the new Rulers of Russia. 
Conspicuous among these was Sidney Hillman, who had turned 
from his “Rabbinical education” ( Who Was Who in America , 
Vol. II, p. 254) to political activities of international scope. 
Twenty- two years before Franklin Roosevelt gave orders to “clear 
everything with Sidney,” similar orders were given American 
Communists by Lenin himself, Hillman being at that time Presi- 
dent of the Russian- American Industrial Corporation at 103 E. 
Fourteenth St., New York (article by Walter Trohan and photo- 
stat in Washington Times-Herald , October 29, 1944). 

Surely a relatively small number of Khazar immigrants from 
Russia came as actual Soviet agents; not all of them came as con- 
firmed Marxists; and some of them have doubtless conformed to 
the traditional American mores. The contrary is neither stated 
nor implied as a general proposition. The fact remains, however, 
that the newer immigrants, to an even greater degree than their 
predecessors of the same stock, were determined to resist absorp- 
tion into Western Christian civilization and were determined 
also to further their aims by political alignment and pressure. 

In the first three decades of the twentieth century, few of the 
several million non-Christian immigrants from Eastern Europe 
were attracted to the Republican Party, which was a majority 
party with no need to bargain for recruits. The Democratic Party, 
on the contrary, was in bad need of additional voters. It had 
elected Woodrow Wilson by a huge electoral majority in 1912 
when the Republican Party was split between the followers of 
William Howard Taft and those of Theodore Roosevelt, but the 
Democratic popular vote was 1,413,708 less than the combined 
Taft and Roosevelt votes. In fact, between 1892 (Cleveland's 
election over Harrison) and 1932 (F. D. Roosevelt's election over 
' Hoover), the Democratic candidate had polled more presidential 
popular votes than the Republican candidate (9,129,606 to 
, 8,538,221) only once, when Woodrow Wilson was elected (1916) 
to a second term on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” In all 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 


the other elections, Republican majorities were substantial. Apply- 
ing arithmetic to the popular vote of the seven presidential 
elections from 1904 to 1928 inclusive ( World Almanac, 1949, p. 
91 ) , it is seen that on the average, the Democrats, except under 
extraordinary circumstances, could not in the first three decades 
of the twentieth century count on as much as 45 % of the votes 

In addition to its need for more votes, the Democratic Party 
had another characteristic which appealed to the politically- 
mmded Eastern European newcomers and drew to its ranks all 
but a handful of those who did not join a leftist splinter party. 
Unlike the Republican Party, which still had a fairly homogene- 
ous membership, the Democratic Party was a collection of sev- 
eral groups. “The Democratic Party is not a political party at 
all; its a marriage of convenience among assorted bedfellows, 
each of whom hates most of the others” (William Bradford Huie 

m an article, “Truman's Plan to Make Eisenhower President” 
Cosmopolitan, July, 1951, p. 31). 

In the early part of the twentieth century the two largest 
components of the Democratic Party were the rural Protestant 
Southerners and the urban Catholic Northerners, who stood as a 
matter of course for the cardinal principles of Western Christian 
civilization, but otherwise had little in common politically except 
an opposition, chiefly because of vanished issues, to the Republi- 
can Paity. The third group, which had been increasing rapidly 
after 1880, consisted of Eastern Europeans and other “liberals,” 
best exemplified perhaps by the distinguished Harvard Jew, of 
Prague stock, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, whom President Wood- 
row Wilson, for reasons not yet fully known by the people, 
named to the United States Supreme Court. This man, at once 
so able, and in his legal and other attitudes so far to the left for 
the America of 1916, deserves attention as a symbol of the future 
for the Democratic Party, and through that party, for America. 

According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, there was an 
historical battle” in the Senate in regard to “Brandeis' radical- 
ism, and lus alleged flack of judicial temperament'.” These 
a eged qualities provoked opposition to the nomination by seven 
former presidents of the American Bar Association, including 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

ex-Secretary of State Elihu Root and ex-Fresident William How- 
ard Taft. 

Despite the opposition, the nomination was confirmed by the 
Senate in a close vote on June 5, 1916. This was one of the most 
significant days in American history, for we had, for the first time 
since the first decade of the nineteenth century, an official of the 
highest status whose heart’s interest was in something besides the 
United States— an official, moreover, who interpreted the Law 
not as the outgrowth of precedent, but according to certain 
results desired by the interpreter. 

The entire article on Justice Brandeis in the Universal Jewish 
Encyclopedia (Vol. II, pp. 495-499) should be read in full, if pos- 
sible, Here are a few significant quotations: 

During the World War, Brandeis occupied himself with 
a close study of the political phases of Jewish affairs in every 
country. Since that time his active interest in Jewish affairs 
lias been centered in Zionism. . . In 1919, he visited Palestine 
for political and organizational reasons ... he has financed 
various social and economic efforts in Palestine. 

As a justice, Mr. Brandeis: 

Never worried about such academic perplexities as the 
compatibility of Americanism with a minority culture or a 
Jewish homeland in Palestine. . . Breaking away from the 
accepted legal catechisms, he thoroughly and exhaustively 
probed the economics of each and every problem presented. 

. . . The truth of his conviction that our individualistic phi- 
losophy could no longer furnish an adequate basis for dealing 
with the problems of modem economic life, is now generally 
recognized ... he envisages a co-operative order. . . Brandeis 
feels that the Constitution must be given liberal construction. 

This may be taken as the beginning of the tendency of our 
courts to assume by judicial decisions the function of legislative 

There is testimony, also, to the influence of Brandeis over 
Wilson as a factor in America’s entry into World War I and its 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 


consequent prolongation with terrible blood losses to all partici- 
pants, especially among boys and young men of British, French, 
and German stock. Although Britain had promised self-rule to 
the Palestine Arabs in several official statements by Sir Henry 
MacMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt, by Field Marshal 
Lord Allenby, Commander in Chief of British Military forces in 
the area, and by others ( The Surrender of An Empire , by Nesta 
H. Webster, Boswell Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd., 10 Essex 
St., London, W.C.2, 1931, pp, 351-356), President Wilson was 
readily won over to a scheme concocted later in another com- 
partment of the British government. This scheme, Zionism, at- 
tracted the favor of the Prime Minister, Mr. David Lloyd George, 
who, like Wilson, had with prominent Jews certain close rela- 
tions. one of which is suggested in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 
article (Vol. XIX, p. 4) on the first Marquess of Reading (previ- 
ously Sir Rufus Daniel Isaacs). Tims, according to S. Landman, 
in his paper “Secret History of the Balfour Declaration” ( World 
Jewry, March 1, 1935), after an understanding had been arrived 
at between Sir Mark Sykes and Weizmann and Sokolow, it was 
resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the 
British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return 
for active Jewish sympathy and support in U.S.A. for the allied 
cause so as to bring about a radical pro-ally tendency in the 
United States.” An article, “The Origin of the Balfour Declara- 
tion” ( The Jewish Chronicle, February 7, 1936), is more specific. 
According to this source, certain "representatives of the British 
and French Governments” had been convinced that “the best and 
perhaps the only way to induce the American President to come 
into the war was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by 
promising them Palestine ” In so doing “the Allies would enlist 
and mobilize the hitherto unsuspected ly powerful force of 
Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere." Since President Wilson 
at that time attached the greatest possible importance to the 
advice of Mr. Justice Brandeis,” the Zionists worked through him 
and “helped to bring America in.” 

The strange power of Brandeis over President Wilson is indi- 
cated several times in the book, Challenging Tears, The Auto - 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

biography of Stephen Wise (G, P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 
1949). Rabbi Wise, for instance, spoke of Wilson’s “leaning heav- 
ily, as I well know he chose to do, on Brandeis” (p. 187), and 
records a surprising remark by the supposedly independent- 
minded World War I President. To Rabbi Wise, who spoke of 
Zionism and the plans for convening “the first session of the 
American Jewish Congress,” Wilson said (p. 189): “Whenever 
the time comes, and you and Justice Brandeis feel that the time 
is ripe for me to speak and act, I shall be ready." 

The authenticity of these statements, which are well docu- 
mented in the sources from which they are quoted, cannot be 
doubted. Full evaluation of President Wilson will have to wait 
until the secret archives of World War I are opened to the public. 
Meanwhile, however, the management of the war in such a way 
as to bleed Europe to death casts persistent reflections upon the 
judgment if not the motives of President Wilson and Prime Min- 
ister David Lloyd George of Great Britain. Their bloody victory 
and their failure in peace stand in strong contrast to Theodore 
Roosevelt’s dramatic success in ending, rather than joining, the 
great conflict (1904-1905) between Russia and Japan. 

After the eight-year rule of President Wilson, the Democratic 
Party was retired from office in the election of 1920. For the next 
twelve years (March 4, 1921-March 4, 1933), the three diverse 
groups in the Party — Southern Protestants, Northern Catholics, 
and Brandeis-type “liberals,” — were held loosely together by 
leaders who helped each other toward the day of victory and the 
resultant power and patronage. Tactfully accustomed to ask no 
questions of each other, these leaders, still mostly Southern Prot- 
estants and Northern Catholics, did not ask any questions of the 
Party's rapidly increasing contingent of Eastern Europeans. 

Thus the astute twentieth century immigrants of Eastern 
European origin continued to join the Democratic Party, in which 
everybody was accustomed to strange bedfellows, and in which 
a largely non-Christian third force was already well intrenched. 
Parenthetically, the best description of the National Democratic 
party as it existed from the time of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term 
and on into the early 1950’s is probably that of Senator Byrd of 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Tarty 


Virginia. Speaking at Selma, Alabama, on November 1, 1951 (AP 
dispatch), he described the party as a “heterogeneous crowd of 
Trumanites" and added that the group, “if it could be called a 
party, is one of questionable ancestry, irresponsible direction 
and predatory purposes.” 

Woodrow Wilson, who was definitely the candidate of a 
minority party, was elected in the first instance by a serious split 
in the Republican Party. By constant reenforcement from abroad, 
however, the “third force” of Eastern Europeans and associates 
of similar ideology was instrumental in raising the Democratic 
Party from a minority to a majority status. Some daring leaders 
of the alien or alien-minded wing conceived the idea of being 
paid in a special way for their contributions to victory. 

Their price, carefully concealed from the American people, 
including of course many lesser figures among the Eastern Euro- 
peans, was the control of the foreign policy of the United States. 

At a glance, the achievement of such an objective might seem 
impossible. In fact, however, it was easy, because it happens 
under our practice that the entire electoral vote of a State 
goes to the candidate whose electors poll a majority of the popu- 
lar votes of the State. With the population of older stock some- 
what evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic 
parties, a well-organized minority can throw enough votes to de- 
termine the recipient of the electoral vote of a state. “The States 
having the largest numbers of Jews are New York, Pennsylvania, 
Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, California, and Mich- 
igan” (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United 
States, p. 154). These, of course, are the “doubtful” states with a 
large electoral vote. 

Thus, when the ship of patronage came in with the election 
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932, the Democrats of the old 
tradition, whether Southern Protestants or Northern Catholics, 
wanted dams, bridges, government buildings, and other govern- 
ment-financed projects in their districts; wanted contracts for 
themselves and their friends; and wanted also a quota of safe- 
tenure positions, such as federal judgeships. Neither group of old- 
time Democrats had many leaders who specialized in languages 

52 The Iron Curtain Over America 

or in the complex subject matter of “foreign affairs,” and neither 
group objected to the seemingly modest interest of certain of the 
party's Eastern European recruits for jobs of sub-cabinet rank in 

The first spectacular triumph of the non-Christian Eastern 
European Democrats was Roosevelt's recognition, less than nine 
months after his inauguration, of the Soviet government of Russia. 
A lengthy factual article, “Moscow’s RED LETTER DAY in 
American History,” by William La Varre in the American Legion 
Magazine (August, 1951), gives many details on our strange dip- 
lomatic move which was arranged by “Litvinoff, of deceitful 
smiles” and by “Henry Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, both pro- 
teges of Felix Frankfurter.” Incidentally, Litvinoff’s birthname 
was Wallach and he also used the name Finkelstein, Three of the 
four persons thus named by Mr. La Varre as influential in this 
deal were of the same non-Christian stock or association — and 
the fourth was Dean Acheson, “who served as law clerk of Justice 
Louis D. Brandeis” ( 17. S. News and World Report, November 9, 
1951 ) before becoming famous as a “Frankfurter boy” ( see below, 
this chapter). The principal “Frankfurter boy” is the subject of a 
most important article in the American Mercury magazine (11 
East 36th Street, New York 16, N. Y., 10 copies for $1.00) for 
April, 1952. The author, Felix Wittner, says in part: 

Acheson’s record of disservice to the cause of freedom 
begins at least nineteen years ago when he became one of 
Stalin’s paid American lawyers. Acheson was on Stalins pay- 
roll even before the Soviet Union was recognized by the 
United States. 

Mr. La Varre’s article should be read in full, among other 
things for its analysis of F. D. Roosevelt’s betrayal of Latin Amer- 
ica to penetration by Communism. Bearing on the basic question 
of the recognition of the Soviet, here are significant quotations: 

Tire very special agent from Moscow, Commissar of all 
the Red Square’s nefarious international machinations, chief 
of the Kremlin’s schemes for communizing the American 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 53 

hemisphere, sat victoriously at the White House desk at mid- 
night, smiling at the President of the United States. 

For fifteen deceitful years the corrupt Kremlin had tried 
to obtain a communist base, protected by diplomatic immu- 
nities, within the United States; four Presidents — Wilson, 
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover — had refused to counte- 
nance Moscow’s pagan ideology or its carriers. But here, at 
last, was a President the communists could deal with. 

Many patriotic, well-informed Americans, in the old De- 
partment of State, in the American Legion, and in the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor, had begged Franklin Roosevelt not 
to use his new leadership of the United States for the aggran- 
dizement of an evil, dangerous and pagan guest — but to 
send him back to Moscow, red with the blood of the Com- 
missar’s own countrymen, without a handshake. 

But Franklin Roosevelt, piqued with the power of his 
new office, stimulated by the clique of Marxian and Fabian 
socialists posing as intellectuals and liberals — and by radi- 
cals in labor unions, universities, and his own sycophant bu- 
reaucracy — had signed his name to the Kremlin’s franchise, 

! Without the approval of Congress, he made an actual treaty 

with the Soviets, giving them the right to establish a com- 
munist embassy and consulates in the United States, with 
l full diplomatic hospitalities and immunities to Stalin’s agents, 

the bloody bolsheviki. . . 


November 16, 1933 — at midnight! That is a date in Ameri- 
can history our children will long have tragic cause to re- 
member. That was the day Soviet Foreign Commissar Maxim 
Litvinov, plunderer of Estonia and the Kremlin’s first agent 
for socializing England, sat down with Franklin Roosevelt, 
after Dean Acheson and Henry Morgenthau had done the 
spadework of propaganda, and made the deal that has led 
the American people, and our once vast resources, into a 
. social and economic calamity to the very brink, now, of 

national and international disaster. . . 

One of the greatest concentrations of factual information, 
wise analyses, police records and military intelligence ever 
to pile up spontaneously on one subject in Washington, all 



The Iron Curtain Over Ajnerica 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 


documenting the liabilities of dealing with the Kremlin, had 
no effect on Franklin Roosevelt. He had appointed Henry 
Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, both proteges of Felix 
Frankfurter, to “study" trade opportunities between the 
U.S.S.R. and the United States, and he praised their report 
of the benefits to come to all U.S. citizens from Soviet 

The record shows that Cordell Hull, upon the receipt of 
this authentic document disclosing the Soviet’s continuing 
duplicity, sent a note of protest to Moscow, but President 
Roosevelt could not be persuaded to withdraw his diplo- 
matic recognition. He began, instead, the “reorganization” 
of the State Department in Washington and the dispatching 
— to far, isolated posts — of its anti-communist career officers. 

The Roosevelt-Stalin Deal, of November, 1933, has been 
so costly to us, as a nation and as a hemisphere, that the full 
appraisal of our losses and liabilities will not be known for 
several generations. The Kremlin’s gains within the United 
States and communism’s cost to us is only now, in 1951 — 
after eighteen years of suffering a Soviet embassy in our 
Capital, and its agents to roam the States — coming to pub- 
lic consciousness. 

It has truly been a costly era of mysterious friendship for 
an appeasement of the devil, of un-American compromises 
with deceit and pagan ideologies. Some of its protagonists are 
now dead, their graves monuments to our present predica- 
ment, but others, again mysteriously, have been allowed to 
step into their strategic places. 

Under the sort of government described by Mr. La Varre in 
his Legion article, large numbers of recently arrived and recently 
naturalized “citizens” and their ideological associates were infil- 
trated by appointment, or by civil service, into the State Depart- 
ment, the presidential coterie, and other sensitive spots in the 
government. Among those who feathered their Washington nests 
in this period were not only leftist East Europeans, but actual 
Communist converts or "sell-outs” to the Communist party among 
native Americans. The solicitude of President F. D. Roosevelt for 

America’s Communists was constant, as was shown in his steady 
opposition to proposed curbs upon them. Ex-Congressman Martin 
Dies, former Chairman of the House of Representatives Commit- 
tee on Un-American Activities, bears witness in lectures (one of 
them heard by the author, 1950) that he was several times sum- 
moned to the White House by President Roosevelt and told — 
with suggestions of great favors to come — that he must stop an- 
noying Communists (see Chapter IV). To the unyielding Dies, 
Roosevelt’s climactic argument was “We need those votes!” A 
speech (May 17, 1951) on a similar theme by Mr. Dies has been 
published by the American Heritage Protective Committee (601 
Bedell Building, San Antonio, Texas, 254), Another speech by 
Mr. Dies, “White House Protects Communists in Government ,” 
was inserted (September 22, 1950) in the Congressional Record 
by Congressman Harold H. Velde of Illinois. 

The government was infiltrated with “risks” from the above 
described groups of Eastern Europeans and with contaminated 
native Americans, but those were not all. After the beginning of 
World War II, so-called "refugees” immediately upon arrival in 
this country were by executive order introduced into sensitive 
government positions without the formality of having them wait 
for citizenship, and without any investigation of their reasons for 
leaving Europe. The way for this infiltration was paved by an 
executive order providing specifically that employment could not 
be denied on the grounds of race, creed, or national origin. 

Since no Jorm of investigation could be made by the United 
States in the distant and hostile areas from which these refugees 
came, and since their number contained persons sympathetic to 
the Soviet Union, this executive order was a potential and in 
many instances a realized death-blow to security. 

Almost as if for a double-check against security, the control of 
security measures in the new atom projects was not entrusted to 
the expert F.B.I., but to the atomic officials themselves. In view 
of their relative inexperience in such matters and in view of the 
amazing executive order so favorable to alien employees, the 
atomic officials were probably less to blame for the theft of atomic 
secrets than the “left-of-center” administrations which appointed 

The Khazars Join the Democratic Party 


56 The Iron Curtain Over America 

them. Among those admitted to a proper spot for learning atomic 
secrets was the celebrated alien, the British subject — but not 
British-born — Klaus Fuchs. Other atomic spies, all aliens or of 
alien associations, were named in Chapter II. 

Next to the atomic energy employees, the United Public 
Workers of America offered perhaps the best opportunity for the 
theft of secrets vital to the U.S. defense. This union included a 
generous number of people of Eastern European stock or con- 
nections, among them Leonard Goldsmith and Robert Weinstein, 
organizers of Panama Canal workers, and both of them said to 
have definite Communist affiliations ( Liberty , May, 1948). This 
union — whose chief bloc of members was in Washington — was 
later expelled (March 1, 1950) by the C.I.O. on charges of being 
Communist-dominated (“Directory of Labor Unions in the 
United States,” Bulletin No. 980, U.S. Dept, of Labor, 1950. 25c). 
However, if the U.S. Government has shown any signs of being 
as particular about its employees (see Tydings Committee Re- 
port, U.S. Senate, 1950) as the C.I.O. is about its members , the 
fact has escaped the attention of the author. 

As the years passed, the infiltration of Eastern Europeans into 
the government had swelled to a torrent. Many of these persons, 
of course, were not Communists and were not sympathetic with 
Communist aims. As repeated elsewhere in this book, the con- 
trary is neither stated nor implied. The author's purpose is simply 
to show that persons of Eastern European stock, or of an ideology 
not influential in the days of the founding and formative period 
of our country, have in recent years risen to many of the most 
strategic spots in the Roosevelt-Truman Democratic Party and 
thereby to positions of great and often decisive power in shaping 
the policy of the United States. The subject was broached by 
W. M. Kiplinger in a book, Washington Is Like That (Harper 
and Brothers, 1942 ) . According to a Readers Digest condensation 
(September, 1942), entitled “The Facts About Jews in Wash- 
ington,” jews were by 1942 conspicuously “numerous” in govern- 
ment agencies and departments concerned with money, labor, 
and justice. The situation stemmed from the fact that “non- Jewish 
officials within government, acting under the direction of the 
President,” were “trying to get various agencies to employ more 

T w 

Jews. . . 

The influence of persons of Eastern European origin, or of 
related origin or ideology, reached its peak (thus far) with Mr. 
Milton Katz at the helm of U.S. policy in Europe (to mid-1951); 
with Mrs. Anna Rosenberg in charge of the manpower of the U. S. 
Army, Navy, and Air Corps; with Mr. Manly Fleischman as Ad- 
ministrator of the Defense Production Administration; and with 
Mr. Nathan P. Feinsinger (New York Times , August 30, 1951) 
as Chairman of the Wage Stabilization Board. Likewise, in 
October, 1948, when President Truman appointed a “committee 
on religious and moral welfare and character guidance in the 
armed forces,” he named as Chairman “Frank L. Weil, of New 
York, a lawyer, and President of the National Jewish Welfare 
Board” ( New York Times , October 28, 1948). 

It is interesting to note the prominence of persons of Khazar 
or similar background or association in the Socialist minority gov- 
ernment of the United Kingdom, and in French politics, begin- 
ning with Leon Blum. Among them are the Rt. Hon. Emanuel 
Shinwell and Minister Jules Moch — archfoe of Marshal Petain — 
who have recently held defense portfolios in the British and 
French cabinets respectively. Just as in America the non-Christian 
characteristically joins the Democratic Party, so in Britain he 
joins the leftist Labor Party. Thus the British House of Commons, 
sitting in the summer of 1951, had 21 Jews among its Labor 
members and none among its Conservative members. Whatever 
his racial antecedents, Mr. Clement Attlee, long leader of the 
British “Labor” Party and Socialist Prime Minister (1945-1951) 
has for many years received international notoriety as a Commu- 
nist sympathizer. For instance, he visited and praised the “Eng- 
lish company” in the international Communist force in the Span- 
ish Civil War ( see photograph and facsimile in The International 
Brigades , Spanish Office of Information, Madrid, 1948, p. 134). 

A few persons of Eastern European origin or background — 
or associated with persons of such background — in positions high 
or strategic, or both, have already been named by the author, 
and others, when their prominence demands it, will be named in 
the pages which follow. The author hereby assures the reader — 
again — that no reflection of any kind is intended and that he has 
no reason for believing that any of these people are other than 
true to their convictions. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

First on any list of Americans of Eastern European origin 
should be the Vienna-born Felix Frankfurter, who in the middle 
twentieth century appears to have replaced “the stock of the 
Puritans” as the shining light and symbol of Harvard University. 
After leaving his professorship in the Harvard Law School, Dr. 
Frankfurter became a Supreme Court Justice and President 
Franklin Roosevelt’s top-flight adviser on legal and other matters. 
In the formation of our national policies his influence is almost 
universally rated as supreme. “I suppose that Felix Frankfurter 
. . . has more influence in Washington than any other American” 
wrote Rev. John P. Sheerin, Editor of The Catholic World 
(March, 1951, p. 405), and the Chicago Tribune, owned by the 
Presbyterian Colonel Robert R. McCormick, has voiced a similar 
opinion. In fact, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is frequently referred 
to by those who know their way around Washington as the “Pres- 
ident” of the United States. In a recent “gag,” the question “Do 
you want to see a new picture of the President of the United 
States?” is followed up by showing a likeness of Frankfurter. 

Mr. Justice Frankfurter is influential not only in counsel but 
in furthering the appointment of favored individuals to strategic 
positions. The so-called “Frankfurter’s boys” include Mr. Ache- 
son, with whom the justice takes daily walks, weather permitting 
( New York Times, January 19, 1949); Alger Hiss; Lee Pressman; 
David Niles, long a senior assistant to President Truman; Benja- 
min V. Cohen, long Counsellor of the Department of State; David 
Lilienthal, long Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission; 
John J. McCIoy, Joe Rauh, Nathan Margold; Donald Hiss, 
brother to Alger, and "now a member of the Acheson law firm”; 
Milton Katz; and former Secretary of War Robert Patterson, “a 
hundred per cent Frankfurter employee” (all names and quotes 
in this paragraph are from Drew Pearson’s syndicated column, 
February 1, 1950). 

A powerful government figure, the Russian-born Isador Lubin, 
was frequently summoned by President F. D. Roosevelt for the 
interpreting of statistics (“send for Lube”); and was subsequently 
a United States representative to the UN (article in New York 
Times, August 8, 1951), Leo Pasvolsky, Russian-bom, was long a 

The Khazars loin the Democratic Party 


power in the Department of State, being, among other things, 
"executive director Committee on Postwar Program, 1944,” and 
"in charge of international organization and security affairs,” 
1945-1946 ( Who's Who in America, Vol. 26, 1950-51, p. 2117). 
Among others very close to Roosevelt II were Samuel Rosenman, 
who as “special counsel” was said to write many of the Presi- 
dent’s speeches; Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury 
and sponsor of the vicious Morgenthau Plan; and Herbert Leh- 
man, Director General (1943 to 1946) of the United Nations 
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), most of 
whose funds — principally derived from the U. S. — were diverted 
to countries which were soon to become Soviet satellites as a 
result of the Yalta and Potsdam surrenders. 

Strategic positions currently or recently held by persons of 
Eastern European origin, or ideological association with such 
people, include a number of Assistant Secretaryships to members 
of the Cabinet, among them incumbents in such sensitive spots 
as Defense, Justice (Customs and Solicitor General’s Office) and 
Labor; the governorships of vital outposts such as Alaska (three 
miles from Russia) and the Virgin Islands (near the Panama 
Canal); appointments in the Executive Office of the President of 
the United States; positions in organizations devoted to interna- 
tional trade and assistance; membership on the Atomic Energy 
Commission; and membership, which may best be described as 
wholesale, in the U.S. delegation to the United Nations. 

The number of persons of Eastern European origin or connec- 
tion in appointive positions of strategic significance in our national 
government is strikingly high in proportion to tire total number of 
such persons in America, On the contrary, in elective positions, 
the proportion of such persons is strikingly below their numerical 
proportion to the total population. The question arises: Does the 
high ratio of appointed persons of Eastern European origin or 
contacts in United States strategic positions reflect the will of the 
U.S. people? If not, what controlling will does it reflect? 


Chapter IV 


In a speech before the Dallas, Texas, Alumni Club of Colum- 
bia University on Armistice Day, 1950, General of the Army 
Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that as Supreme Commander in 
Europe he made a habit of asking American soldiers why they 
were fighting the Germans and 90% of the boys said they had no 
idea. Very significantly, General Eisenhower did not offer mem- 
bers of his Alumni Group any precise answer to his own question. 
The high point of his speech was a statement of his hope that 
Columbia might become the fountain-head for widely dissemi- 
nated simple and accurate information which will prevent our 
country from ever again “stumbling into war” at “the whim of 
the man who happens to be president” (notes taken by the 
author, who attended the Alumni Club meeting, and checked 
immediately with another Columbian who was also present). 

The American soldier is not the only one who wondered and 
is still wondering about the purposes of World War II. Winston 
Churchill has called it “The Unnecessary War.” In view of our 
legacy of deaths, debt, and danger, Churchill’s term may be 
considered an understatement. 

Before a discussion of any war, whether necessary or unneces- 
sary, a definition of the term war is desirable. For the purposes 
of this book, war may be defined, simply and without elaboration, 
as the ultimate and violent action taken by a nation to implement 
its foreign policy. The results, even of a successful war, are so 
horrible to contemplate that a government concerned for the 
welfare of its people will enter the combat phase of its diplomacy 
only as a last resort. Every government makes strategic decisions, 
and no such decision is so fruitful of bitter sequels as a policy of 
drift or a policy of placating a faction — which has money or votes 
or both — and it is on just such a hybrid policy of drift and cater- 
ing that our foreign policy has been built. 


The Unnecessary War 

A commonly made and thoroughly sound observation about 
our foreign policy beginning with 1919 is that it creates vacuums 
— for a hostile power to fill. The collapsed Germany of 1923 cre- 
ated a power vacuum in the heart of Europe, but Britain and 
France made no move to fill it, perhaps because each of them was 
more watchful of the other than feaiful of fallen Germany. The 
United States was far-off; its people of native stock, disillusioned 
by the bursting of Woodrow Wilson’s dream bubbles, were dis- 
posed to revert to their old policy of avoiding foreign entangle- 
ments; and its numerous new Eastern European citizens, hostile 
to Germany, were watchfully awaiting a second and final col- 
lapse of the feeble republic bom of the peace treaty of 1919. 
The new Soviet dictatorship, finding Marxism unworkable and 
slowly making it over into its later phases of Leninism and Stalin- 
ism, was as yet too precariously established for a westward ven- 
ture across Poland. 

As a result, Germany moved along stumblingly with more 
than a dozen political parties and a resultant near-paralysis of 
government under the Socialist President Friedrich Ebert to 1925 
and then, with conditions improving slightly, under the popular 
old Prussian Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, who was Presi- 
dent from 1925 to 1933. 

Meanwhile two of Germany’s numerous political parties 
emerged into definite power - the Communists, many of whose 
leaders were of Khazar stock, and the National Socialist German 
Workers Party, which was popularly called Nazi from the first 
two syllables of the German word for “National.” Faced with 
harsh alternatives (testimony of many Germans to the author in 
Germany ) , the Germans chose the native party and Adolf Hitler 
was elected Chancellor. 

The date was January 30, 1933, five weeks before Franklin 
Roosevelt’s first inauguration as President of the United States; 
but it was only after the aged President von Hindenburg s death 
(on August 2) that Hitler was made both President and Chan- 
cellor ( August 19 ) . Differences between the rulers of the United 
States and Germany developed quickly. Hitler issued a series of 
tirades against Communism, which he considered a world men- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

ace, whereas Roosevelt injected life into the sinking body of 
world Communism (Chapter III, above) by giving full diplo- 
matic recognition to Soviet Russia on November 16, 1933, a day 
destined to be known as “American-Soviet Friendship Day” by 
official proclamation of the State of New York. 

Sharing the world spotlight with his anti-Communist words 
and acts, was Hitler's domestic policy, which in its early stages 
may be epitomized as “Germany for the Germans,” of whom in 
1933 there were some 62,000,000. Hitler’s opponents, more espe- 
cally those of non-German stock (510,000 in 1933 according to 
the World Almanac, 1939), were unwilling to lose by compromise 
any of their position of financial and other power acquired in 
large degree during the economic collapse of 1923, and appealed 
for help to persons of prominence in the city of New York and 
elsewhere. Their appeal was not in vain. 

In late July, 1933, an International Jewish Boycott Conference 
( New York Times, August 7, 1933) was held in Amsterdam to 
devise means of bringing Germany to terms. Samuel Untermeyer 
of New York presided over the Boycott Conference and was 
elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation. 
Returning to America, Mr. Untermeyer described the planned 
Jewish move against Germany as a “holy war ... a war that must 
be waged unremittingly” (speech over WABC, as printed in New 
York Times of August 7, 1933). The immediately feasible tactic 
of the "economic boycott” was described by Mr. Untermeyer as 
“nothing new,” for “President Roosevelt, whose wise statesman- 
ship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking 
it in furtherance of his noble conception of the relations between 
capital and labor.” Mr. Untermeyer gave his hearers and readers 
specific instructions: 

It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Ger- 
many. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shop- 
keeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes 
German ships and shipping. 


The Unnecessary War 

Before the Boycott Conference adjourned at Amsterdam, 
arrangement was made to extend the boycott to include France, 
Holland, Belgium, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia and other 
lands as far flung as Finland and Egypt” ( New York Times, 
August 1, 1933). In connection with the boycott, the steady 
anti-German campaign, which had never died down in America 
after World War I, became suddenly violent. Germany was 
denounced in several influential New York papers and by radio. 

The public became dazed by the propaganda, and the U. S. 
Government soon placed on German imports the so-called “gen- 
eral" tariff rates as against the “most favored” status for all other 
nations. This slowed down but did not stop the German manu- 
facture of export goods, and the U. S. took a further step, 
described as follows in the New York Times (June 5, 1936): 
"Already Germany is paying general tariff rates because she has 
been removed by Secretary' of State Cordell Hull from the most 
favored nation list .... Now she will be required to pay addi- 
tional duties .... it was decided that they would range from 
about 22 to 56 per cent ” There were protests. According to the 
New York Times (July 12, 1936): “importers and others interested 
in trade with Germany insisted yesterday that commerce between 
the two countries will dwindle to the vanishing point within the 
next six months.” The prediction was correct. 

An effort of certain anti-German international financial inter- 
ests was also made to “call” sufficient German treasury notes to 
“break” Germany. The German government replied successfully 
to this maneuver by giving a substantial bonus above the current 
exchange rate for foreigners who would come to Germany, 
exchange their currency for marks, and spend die marks in Ger- 
many. Great preparations w’ere made for welcoming strangers to 
such gatherings as the “World Conference on Recreation and 
Leisure Time” (Hamburg, August, 1936), one of whose pro- 
grammes, a historic pageant on the Auszen-AIster, was attended 
by the audior (who was visiting northern European museums 
and coastal areas in the interest of his historical novel, Swords 
in the Dawn). Special trains brought in school children from as 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Unnecessary War 


far as northern Norway. Whether from sincerity or from a desire 
to create a good impression, visitors were shown every courtesy. 
As a result of the German effort and the money bonus afforded 
by the favorable exchange, retired people, pensioners, and 
tourists spent enough funds in the Reich to keep the mark stable. 

But this German financial victory in 1936, though it prevented 
an immediate currency collapse, did not solve the problem of 
62,000,000 people (69,000,000 by 1939) in an area approximately 
the size of Texas being effectively denied export trade. 

Through Secretary of State Cordell Hull and other officials 
President Roosevelt sponsored Mr. Untermeyer’s economic war 
against Germany, but he still adhered, in his public utterances, 
to a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign 
nations. In two speeches in the summer of 1937 he voiced “our 
national determination to keep free from foreign wars and foreign 
entanglements” ( American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932- 
1940, by Charles A. Beard, Yale University Press, 1946, p. 183). 

Some sinister underground deal must have been consummated 
within two months, however, for in a speech in Chicago on Octo- 
ber 5 the President made an about-face, which was probably the 
most complete in the whole history of American foreign policy. 
Here are two excerpts from the famous “Quarantine” speech: 

... let no one imagine that America will escape, that 
America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere 
will not be nttackcdl . . . 

When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, 
the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the 
patients in order to protect the health of the community 
against the spread of the disease. 

This pronouncement, so inflammatory’, so provocative of war, 
caused unprecedented consternation in the United States (see 
Beard, op. cit., pp. 186 ff. ). Most outspoken in opposition to the 
“quarantine” policy was the Chicago Tribune. Violently enthusi- 
astic was the New Masses , and Mr. Earl Browder promised the 
administration the “100 per cent unconditional support of the 
Communist party” provided Roosevelt adopted a hands-off policy 
toward Communism. Incidentallv, this Democratic-Communist 

collaboration was openly or covertly to be a factor in subsequent 
United States foreign and domestic policy’ to and beyond the 
middle of the twentieth century. “I welcome the support of Earl 
Browder or any one else who will help keep President Roosevelt 
in office,” said Harry S. Truman, candidate for Vice President, 
on October 17, 1944 ( National Republic, May, 1951, p. 8). 

Far more numerous than denouncers or endorsers of the 
"quarantine” speech of 1937 were those who called for clarifica- 
tion. This, however, was not vouchsafed — nor was it, apart from 
possible details of method and time, really necessary. It was per- 
fectly obvious that the President referred to Japan and Germany. 
With the latter country we had already declared that “no quarter” 
economic war recommended by the President of the World Jewish 
Economic Federation, and now in unquestionably hostile terms 
our President declared a political war. In his diary, Secretary of 
Defense James Forrestal recorded that lie was told by Jose ph 
P. Kennedy, our Ambassador to Britain, that Prime Minister 
Chamberlain "stated that America and the world Jews had forced 
England into the war” ( The Forrestal Diaries, ed. by Walter 
Millis, The Viking Press, New York, 1951, pp. 121-122). 

Censorship, governmental and other (Chapter V), was tight 
in America by 1937. It had blocked out the reasons for Mr. Roose- 
velt’s public change of policy between summer and autumn, and 
it blacked out the fact that the President’s threatening attitude 
caused Germany to make, and make a second time, an appeal for 
peace. These appeals did not become known to the American 
public for more than ten years. Here is the story, summarized 
from an article by Bertram D. Hulen in the New York Times of 
December 17, 1948: 

In 1937 and again in 1938 the German government made “a 
sincere effort to improve relations with the United States, only to 
be rebuffed.” The U. S. Government’s alleged reason was “a fear 
of domestic political reactions in this country’ unfavorable to the 
Administration.” Germany was told that the American public 
would not tolerate a conference. Some officials favored exploring 
die German offer “after the congressional elections in die fall” 
(1938). The sequel, of course, is that the Roosevelt administra- 
tion blocked Germany’s further efforts for peace by withdrawing 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Unnecessary War 


our ambassador from Berlin and thus peremptorily preventing 
future negotiations. Germany then had to recall her Ambassador 
“who was personally friendly toward Americans” and, according 
to the New York Times, “was known in diplomatic circles here at 
the time to be working for international understanding in a spirit 
of good will.” Here, to repeat for emphasis, is the crux of tire mat- 
ter: The whole story of Germany's appeal for negotiations and our 
curt refusal and severance of diplomatic relations was not pub- 
lished in 1937 or 1938, when Germany made her appeals, but was 
withheld from the public until ferreted out by the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities after World War 11 and by that 
committee released to the press more than ten years after the 
facts were so criminally suppressed. Parenthetically, it is because 
of services such as this on behalf of truth that the Committee 
on Un-American Activities has been so frequently maligned. 
In fact, in our country since the 1930’s there seems little question 
that the best criterion for separating true Americans from others 
is a recorded attitude toward the famous Martin Dies Committee. 

Economically strangled by an international boycott headed 
up in New York, and outlawed politically even to the extent of 
being denied a conference, the Germans in the late 1930’s faced 
the alternatives of mass unemployment from loss of world trade 
or working in government-sponsored projects. They accepted the 
latter. The workers who lost their jobs in export businesses were at 
once employed in Hitler’s armament industries (see the special 
edition of the lllustrirte Zeitung for November 25, 1936), which 
were already more than ample for the size and resources of the 
country, and soon became colossal. 

Thus by desperate measures, advertised to the world in the 
phrase “guns instead of butter," Hitler prepared to cope with 
what he considered to be the British-French-American-Soviet 
“encirclement.” Stung by what he considered President Roose- 
velt’s insulting language and maddened by the contemptuous 
rejection of his diplomatic approaches to the United States, he 
made a deal (August, 1939) against Poland with the Soviet Union, 
a power he had taught the German people to fear and hate! With 
the inevitability of a Sophoclean tragedy, this betrayal of his 

own conscience brought him to ruin - and Germany with him. 
Such is the danger which lurks for a people when they confide 
their destiny to the whims of a dictatorl 

The war which resulted from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policy is 
well remembered, especially by those American families whose 
sons lie beneath white crosses - at home or afar. Its pre-shooting 
phase, with all the weavings back and forth, is analyzed in Pro- 
fessor Beard’s volume, already referred to. Its causes are the sub- 
ject of Frederick R. Sanborn’s Design for War (Devin-Adair, New 
York, 1951). Its progress is surveyed in William Henry Chamber- 
lin s America s Second Crusade ( Henry Regnery Company, Chi- 
cago, 1950). Details cannot be here presented. 

This much, however, is evident. With some secret facts now 
revealed and with the foul picture now nearing completion, we 
can no longer wonder at a clean trustful young soldier or an 
honorable general being unable to give a satisfactory reason for 
our part in promoting and participating in World War II. 

As the “unnecessary war” progressed, we adopted an increas- 
ingly horrible policy. Our government’s fawning embrace of the 
Communist dictator of Russia, and his brutal philosophy which we 
called democratic, was the most “unnecessary" act of our whole 
national history, and could have been motivated only by the most 
reprehensible political considerations — such, for instance, as 
holding the 100 per cent Communist support at a price proposed 
by Mr. Browder. Among those who learned the truth and 
remained silent, with terrible consequences to himself and his 
country, was James V. Forrestal. In an article, “The Forrestal 
Diaries,” Life reveals (October 15, 1951) that in 1944 Forrestal 
wrote tlius to a friend about the “liberals” around him: 

I find that whenever any American suggests Uiat we act 
in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt 
to be called a [profane adjective deleted] fascist or imper- 
ialist, while if Uncle Joe suggests that he needs the Baltic 
Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the 
Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid 
and generally delightful fellow who is very easv to deal with 
because he is so explicit in what he wants. 




The Iron Curtain Over America 

Among those who saw our madness, and spoke out, were Senator 
Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Winston Churchill. 

Senator Taft’s radio address of June 29, 1941, a few days after 
Hitler invaded Russia, included the following passage: 

How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling 
for democratic principles? Yet the President on Monday an- 
nounced that the United States would give all possible aid to 
Russia, the character and quantity 7 of the aid to await only a 
disclosure of Russian needs. . . To spread the four freedoms 
throughout the world we will ship airplanes and tanks and 
guns to Communist Russia. But no country was more respon- 
sible for the present war and Germany’s aggression than 
Russia itself. Except for the Russian pact with Germany there 
would have been no invasion of Poland. Then Russia proved 
to be as much of an aggressor as Germany. In the name of 
democracy we are to make a Communist alliance with the 
most ruthless dictator in the world. . . 

But the victory of Communism in the world would be far 
more dangerous to the United States than the victory of 
Fascism. There has never been the slightest danger that the 
people of this country 7 would ever embrace Bundism or Naz- 
ism. . . . But Communism masquerades, often successfully, 
under the guise of democracy {Human Events, March 28, 

The Prime Minister of Britain, the Right Honorable Winston 
Churchill, was alarmed at President Roosevelt’s silly infatuation 
for Stalin and the accompanying mania for serving the interests 
of world Communism. "It would be a measureless disaster if Rus- 
sian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the 
ancient states of Europe,” he wrote on Oct. 21, 1942, to the British 
Foreign Secretary 7 , Anthony Eden. Churchill also wanted an 
invasion of the Balkans, which Roosevelt and Marshall opposed, 
apparently to please Stalin (Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It, 
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1946, passim). This is no 
place and the author assumes no competence for analyzing the 
strategy of individual campaigns; but according to Helen Lom- 

The Unnecessary War 

bard’s While They Fought (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947, p. 148) 
General Marshall stated to a Congressional Committee that the 
“purpose” of the Italian campaign was to draw "German forces 
away from the Russian front,” and according to the same source 
General Mark Clark when questioned "about American political 
aims” found himself “obliged to state that his country was seeking 
nothing except ground in which to bury her dead.” Such being 
true, one may wonder why — except for the furtherance of 
Stalin’s aims — the forces devoted to strategically unimportant 
Italy, the winning of which left the Alps between our armies and 
Germany, were not landed, for instance, in the Salonika area for 
the historic Vardar Valley invasion route which leads without 
major obstacles to tire heart of Europe and would have helped 
Stalin defeat Hitler without giving the Red dictator all of 
Christian Eastern Europe as a recompense. 

It is ’widely realized now that Churchill had to put up with 
much indignity and had to agree to many strategically unsound 
policies to prevent the clique around Roosevelt from prompting 
him to injure even more decisively Britain’s world position vis-a- 
vis with the Soviet Union. Sufficient documentation is afforded 
by General Elliott Roosevelt’s frank and useful As He Saw It, 
referred to above. Determined apparently to present the truth 
irrespective of its bearing on reputations, the general (p. 116) 
quotes his father’s anti-British attitude as expressed at Casa- 
blanca: "I will work with all my might and main to see to it that 
tire United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting 
any plan . . , that will aid or abet the British Empire in its 
imperial ambitions.” This was the day before Roosevelt’s "Uncon- 
ditional Surrender” proclamation (Saturday, January 23, 1943). 
The next day Roosevelt again broached the subject to his son, 
telling him the British "must never get the idea that we’re in it 
just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas.” 

This attitude toward Britain, along with a probably patho- 
logical delight in making Churchill squirm, explains the super- 
ficial reason for Roosevelt’s siding with the Stalinites on the choice 
of a strategically insignificant area for the Mediterranean front. 
As implied above, the deeper reason, beyond question, was that 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Unnecessary War 


in his frail and fading condition he was a parrot for the ideas 
which the clique about him whispered into his ears, with the 
same type of flattery that Mr. Untenneyer had used so success- 
fully in initiating the Jewish boycott No reason more valid can 
be found for the feeble President’s interest in weakening the 
British Empire while strengthening the Soviet Empire — either in 
the gross or in such specific instances as the Roosevelt-Eisenhower 
policy in Germany. This policy, initiated by Roosevelt and imple- 
mented by Eisenhower, was well summarized in a speech, “It is 
Just Common Sense to Ask Why We Arrived at Our Present Posi- 
tion,” by Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee in the 
House of Representatives on March 19, 1951 ( Congressional 
Record , pp. A 1584 to A 1568) : 

. . . We couid have easily gotten to Berlin first. But our 
troops were first halted at the Elbe. They were then with- 
drawn from that river in a wide circle — far enough westward 
to make Stalin a present of the great Zeiss optical and pre- 
cision instrument works at Jena, the most important V-l and 
V-2 rocket laboratory’ and production plant in Nordhausen, 
and the vital underground jet plant in Kahla, Everywhere we 
surrendered to the Soviets intact thousands of German planes, 
including great masses of jet fighters ready for assembly, as 
well as research centers, rocket developments, scientific per- 
sonnel, and other military treasures. 

When it was All over, a large part of the formidable Rus- 
sian militarism of today was clearly marked “Made in Amer- 
ica” or "donated by America from Germany.” But where 
Roosevelt left off President Truman resumed. 

At Potsdam, Truman maintaining intact Roosevelt’s iron 
curtain of secret diplomacy, played fast and loose with Ameri- 
can honor and security. He agreed to an enlargement of the 
boundaries of a Poland already delivered by Roosevelt and 
Churchill to Russian control through addition of areas that 
had for centuries been occupied by Germans or people of 
German origin. Some 14,000,000 persons were brutally ex- 
pelled from their homes with the confiscation of virtually all 
their property. Only 10,000,000 finally reached the American, 

French, and British zones of Germany. Four million mysteri- 
ously disappeared, though the finger points toward Russian 
atrocities. Thus Truman approved one of the greatest mass 
deportations in history, which for sheer cruelty is a dark page 
in the annals of history. 

At Potsdam, Truman also sanctioned Russian acquisition 
of Eastern Germany, the food bin of that nation before the 
war. It then became impossible for the remaining German 
economy in British, French, and American hands to feed its 
people. Germany, like Japan, also went on our bounty rolls. 

Like Roosevelt, Truman did not neglect to build up Rus- 
sian military strength when bis opportunity came at Pots- 
dam. He provided her with more factories, machines, and 
military equipment though at the time he attended Potsdam 
Truman knew that through lend-lease we had already dan- 
gerously expanded Russia’s military might and that, in addi- 
tion, we had given the Soviets some 15,000 planes — many 
of them our latest type — and 7,000 tanks. 

But at Potsdam Truman gave to Russia the entire zone 
embracing the Elbe and Oder Rivers, excepting Hamburg, 
which lies within the British zone. Naval experts had known 
from the early days of World War II that it was along these 
rivers and their tributaries that the Germans had set up 
their submarine production line. The menace which the Nazi 
underwater fleet constituted during World War II is still 
remembered by residents along the Atlantic coast who saw’ 
oil tankers, merchant ships, and even a troop transport sunk 
within sight of our shores. Convoy losses during the early 
years of the w r ar were tremendous. And special defensive 
methods had to be devised by our Navy to get our supplies 
across the Atlantic. 

But in spite of this, the President agreed at Potsdam to 
deliver to Russia the parts [of Germany containing] plants 
sufficient for her to fabricate hundreds of submarines. In ad- 
dition to this, lie agreed to give to Russia 10 of the latest 
snorkel-type long-range German submarines for experimental 

Why did Churchill consent to the initiation of such a pro- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Unnecessary War 


gram? Why did he allow Roosevelt to give an ideologically hostile 
power a foothold as far West as the Elbe River, which flows into 
the North Sea? 

Since Churchill was characteristically no weak-kneed yes-man 
(witness his “blood and tears” speech which rallied his people in 
one of their darkest hours), Roosevelt and his clique must have 
confronted him with terrible alternatives to secure his consent 
to the unnatural U. S. decisions in the last months of the war. 
Wrote George Sokolsky in his syndicated column of March 22, 
1951, "Tire pressure on him (Churchill) from Roosevelt, who was 
appeasing Stalin, must have been enormous. . , . But why was 
Roosevelt so anxious to appease Stalin? And also at Potsdam, 
why was Truman so ready to adopt the same vicious policy 
which, as a former field grade officer of the army, he must have 
known to be wrong? 

A study of our Presidential “policies” from 1933, and especially 
from 1937, on down to Potsdam, leads to a horrible answer. 

To one who knows something of the facts of the world and 
knows also the main details of the American surrender of security 
and principles at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, and other confer- 
ences, three ghastly purposes come into clear focus: 

( 1 ) As early as 1937, our government determined upon war 
against Germany for no formulated purpose beyond pleasing the 
dominant Eastern European element and allied elements in the 
"National Democratic Tarty, and holding those votes, as Roose- 
velt 11 put it (Chapter III, above). 

The President’s determination to get into war to gratify his 
vanity of having a third term of office is touched on by Jesse H. 
Jones, former Secretary of Commerce and head of the Recon- 
struction Finance Corporation, in his book, Fifty Billion Dollars 
(The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951). In this compre- 
hensive and carefully documented volume, which is obligatory 
background reading on U. S. politics in the years 1932-1945, Mr. 
Jones throws much light on Roosevelt, the “Total Politician.” On 
Roosevelt’s desire for getting into World War II, these (p. 260) 
are Mr. Jones’s words: “Regardless of his oft repeated statement 
1 hate war,’ he was eager to get into the fighting since that would 

insure a third term.” The most notorious instance of the Presi- 
dent’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character was his unblushing 
promise, as he prepared for intervention, that there would be no 
war. The third-term candidate’s "again and again and again” 
speech (Boston, October 30, 1940) is invariably quoted, but even 
more inclusive was his broadcast statement of October 26 that 
no person in a responsible position in his government had “ever 
suggested in any shape, manner, or form the remotest possibility 
of sending the boys of American mothers to fight on the battle- 
fields of Europe.” We are thus confronted by a dilemma. Was 
Roosevelt the scheming miner of his country or was he a help- 
less puppet pulled by strings from hands which wielded him 
beyond any power of his to resist? 

A continuing lack of any policy beyond the corralling of 
minority votes blighted the entire world efFort of our devoted 
and self-sacrificing soldiers, and frustrated the hopes of those 
of our lower echelon policy-makers who were trying to salvage 
something useful to civilization from our costly world-wide war. 
Our diplomatic personnel, military attaches, and other representa- 
tives abroad were confused by what they took to be rudderless 
drifting. In one foreign country diametrically opposed statements 
were issued simultaneously by heads of different U. S. missions. 
In Washington, the Office of War Information issued under the 
same date line completely conflicting instructions to two sets of 
its representatives in another Asiatic country, A United States 
military attach6 with the high rank of brigadier general made 
an impassioned plea (in the author’s hearing) for a statement of 
our purposes in the war; but, asking the bread of positive stra- 
tegic policy, he got the stone of continued confusion. Some of the 
confusion was due to the fact that officials from the three prin- 
cipal kinds of Democrats (Chapter III) were actuated by and 
gave voice to different purposes; most of it, however, resulted 
from the actual lack of any genuine policy except to commit our 
troops and write off casualties with the smoke of the President’s 
rhetoric. Yes, we were fighting a war, not to protect our type of 
civilization or to repel an actual or threatened invasion, but for 
Communist and anti-German votes. Thtis when our ailing Presi- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

dent went to Yalta, he is said to have carried no American 
demands, to have presented no positive plans to counter the 
proposals of Stalin. In his feebleness, with Alger Hiss nearby, he 
yielded with scarcely a qualm to the strong and determined Com- 
munist leader. For fuller details see the carefully documented 
article, “America Betraved at Yalta,” by Hon. Lawrence H. Smith. 
U. S. Representative from Wisconsin ( National Republic, July, 

(2) The powerful Eastern European element dominant in 
the inner circles of the Democratic Tarty regarded with complete 
equanimity, perhaps even with enthusiasm, the killing of as 
many as possible of the world-ruling and Khazar-hated race of 
“ Aryans " (Chapter II); that is, native stock Americans of Eng- 
lish, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, Latin, 
and Slavic descent. This non-Aryan power bloc therefore en- 
dorsed “Unconditional Surrender” and produced the Morgenthau 
Plan (see below), both of which were certain to stiffen and pro- 
long the German resistance at the cost of manv more American 
lives, much more desolation in Germany, and many more German 
lives — also “Aryan.” The plans of the prolongers of the war were 
sustained by those high Democratic politicians who saw nothing 
wrong in the spilling of blood in the interest of votes. Unfortu- 
nately, President Roosevelt became obsessed with the idea of 
killing Germans (As He Saw It, pp. 185-186) rather than defeat- 
ing Hitler, and reportedly set himself against any support of anti- 
Hitler elements in Germany. Perhaps taking his cue from his 
Commartder-in-Chief — a term Roosevelt loved — General Mark 
Clark told American soldiers of the Fifth Army that German 
“assaults” were "welcome” since “it gives you additional oppor- 
tunity to kill your hated enemy in large numbers.” Tiie general 
drove the point home. “It is open season on the Anzio bridge- 
head,” he continued, “and there is no limit to the number of 
Germans you can kill” ( New York Times, February 13, 1944). 

Such a sentiment for men about to make the supreme sacrifice 
of their lives has — in the author’s opinion — an unnatural ring 
to ears attuned to the teachings of Christianity. Such a stress on 
"killing” or “kill” rather than on a “cause” or on “victory” is defi* 

The Unnecessary War 


nitely at variance with the traditions of Western Christian civili- 
zation. It is also costly in the life blood of America, for “killing” 
is a two-edged sword. An enemy who would surrender in the face 
of certain defeat will fight on to the end when truculently prom- 
ised a “killing” — and more Americans will die with him. 

The underlying philosophy of “killing” was incidentally hos- 
tile to the second largest racial strain in America. Germans have 
from the beginning been second only to the English and Scotch 
in tire make-up of our population. “In 1775 the Germans consti- 
tuted about 10 per cent of the white population of the colonies” 
( The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United 
States p. 233). The total of Dutch, Irish, French “and all others” 
was slightly less than the Germans, the great bulk of the popula- 
tion being, of course, the English-speaking people from England, 
Scotland, and Wales. In the first three quarters of the nineteenth 
century “German immigration outdistanced all other immigra- 
tion” and as of 1950 “the Germans have contributed over 25 per 
cent of the present white population of the United States. The 
English element — including Scots, North Irish, and Welsh — 
alone exceeds them with about 33 per cent of the present white 
population. The Irish come third with about 15 per cent” (op. 
cit., p. 233). 

Thus in his desire for shedding German blood, apart from 
military objectives, Roosevelt set himself not against an enemy 
government hut against the race which next to the English gave 
America most of its life-blood. The general merely copied his 
"commander-in-chief.” Another tragic factor in any announced 
stress on “killing” was, of course, that the Germans whom we 
were to “kill” rather than merely “defeat” had exactly as much to 
do with Hitler’s policies as our soldiers in Korea have to do with 
Acheson’s policies. 

Why did the thirty-four million Americans of German blood 
make no loud protest? The answer is this; in physical appearance, 
in culture, and in religion, Protestant or Catholic, they were so 
identical with the majority that their amalgamation had been 
almost immediate. In 1945 there was a great strain of German 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

blood in America, but there was no significant vote-delivering 
body of political “German-Americans.” 

Meanwhile, the ships which took American soldiers to kill 
Germans and meet their own death in Europe brought home 
“refugees” in numbers running in many estimates well into seven 
figures. According to Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge 
Long (testimony before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
Nov. 26, 1943), the number of officially admitted aliens fleeing 
“Hitlers persecution” had reached 580,000 as early as November , 
1943. Those refugees above quotas were admitted on “visitors’ 
visas." These facts were released by Congressman Sol Bloom, 
Democrat of New York, Chairman of the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, on December 10 (article by Frederick Barkley, 
New York Times, Dec. 11, 1943). On December 11, Congressman 
Emanuel Ccllcr, Democrat of New York, complained that Mr. 
Long was, in all the State Department, the man ‘least sympa- 
thetic to refugees,” and added indignantly that United States 
ships had returned from overseas ports "void of passengers” 
(New York Times, December 12, 1943). Incidentally, in 1944 Mr. 
Long ceased to be Assistant Secretary of State. 

The influx of refugees continued. So great was the number 
of these people that even with the closing of thousands of Amer- 
ican homes by war casualties, the housing shortage after the war 
was phenomenal. For the lack of homes available to veterans, 
some writers blamed capital, some blamed labor, and some found 
other causes; but none, to the knowledge of the author, counted 
the homes which had been preempted by "refugees,” while our 
soldiers were fighting beyond the seas. By 1951 the situation 
showed no amelioration, for on August 20 Senator Pat McCarran, 
chairman of a Senate sub-committee on internal security, said 
that "possibly 5,000,000 aliens had poured into the country' 
illegally, creating a situation potentially more dangerous’ than 
an armed invasion” (AP dispatch in New York Times , August 20, 
1951). This statement should be pondered thoughtfully by every' 
true American. 

And there are more aliens to come. On September 7, 1951, 
a “five-year program for shifting 1,750,000 of Europe’s ‘surplus' 

The Unnecessary War 

population to new homes and opportunities in the Americas and 
Australia was disclosed” by David A. Morse, head of the Inter- 
national Labor Office of the UN (New York Times, Sept. 8, 1951). 
Needless to say, few of those 1,750,000 persons are likely to be 
accepted elsewhere than in the United States (for data on Mr. 
Morse, see Economic Council Letter, No. 200, October 1, 1948, 
or Who’s Who in America, 1950-1951). Congressman Jacob K. 
Javits of New York’s Twenty'-first District, known to some as the 
Fourth Reich from the number of its “refugees” from Germany, 
also wishes still more immigrants. In an article, “Let Us Open the 
Gates” (New York Times Magazine , July 8, 1951), he asked for 
ten million immigrants in the next twenty' years. 

(3) Our alien-dominated government fought the war for the 
annihilation of Germany, the historic bulwark of Christian Europe 
(Chapter I, above). The final phase of this strategically unsound 
purpose sprouted with the cocky phrase “Unconditional Surren- 
der,” already mentioned. It was "thrown out at a press confer- 
ence by President Roosevelt at Casablanca on January' 24, 1943 
.... President Roosevelt went into the press conference in 
which be ‘ad-libbed’ the historic phrase” (Raymond Gram Swing 
in “Unconditional Surrender,” The Atlantic Monthly, September 
1947). According to General Elliott Roosevelt, the President 
repeated the phrase, “thoughtfully sucking a tooth” (As He Saw 
It, p. 117), and added that “Uncle Joe might have made it up 

Our foul purpose of liquidating Germany flowered with the 
implementation of the Morgenthau Plan, an implementation 
winch allowed "widespread looting and violence” by “displaced 
persons” and brought Germans to the verge of starvation, accord- 
ing to Prof. Harold Zink, who served as American Editor of the 
Handbook for Military Government in Germany in 1944 and was 
subsequently Consultant on U.S. Reorganization of German Gov- 
ernment, U.S. Troop Control Council for Germany, 1944-1945 
(Wfio’s Who in America, Vol. 25, 1948-1949, p. 2783). In his book, 
American Military Government in Germany (Macmillan, 1947, 
pp. 106 and 111), Prof. Zink writes as follows: 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Germans were forced to furnish food for the dis- 
placed persons at the rate of 2,000 calories per day when they 
themselves could have only 900-1100 calories. . . The amount 
available for German use hardly equalled the food supplied 
by the Nazis at such notorious concentration camps as 
Dachau . . . most of the urban German population suffered 
severely from lack of food. 

The hunger at Dachau was war-time inhumanity by people 
who were themselves desperately hungry because their food 
stocks and transportation systems had been largely destroyed by 
American air bombardment; but the quotation from Professor 
Zink refers to peace-time inhumanity, motivated by vengeance 
partly in its conception and even more so in its implementation 
(see Potsdam Agreement , Part III, paragraph 156 in Berlin Repa- 
rations Assignment, by Ratchford and Ross, The University of 
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, p. 206). 

Why did inhumanity in Germany go on? Because “a little 
dove,” according to President Roosevelt, "flew in the Presidents 
window and roused him against a "too ‘easy treatment of the 
Germans,” the "little dove” being “actually Secretary Morgen- 
thau’s personal representative in die ETO” (Zink, op. cit pp. 
131-132)1 Further testimony to the Presidents desire for an 
inhuman treatment of "German people is found in former Sec- 
retar)' of State James F. Byrnes’s book, Speaking Frankly (Harper 
and Brothers, New York, 1947). The President stated to his Sec- 
retary of State that the Gennans "for a long time should have 
only soup for breakfast, soup for lunch and soup for dinner 

(p. 182). 

The fruits of the Morgenthau Plan were not all harvested at 
once. The persistence of our mania for destroying the historic 
heart of Germany was shown vividly in 1947. With Prussia 
already being digested in the maw of die Soviet, the Allied Con- 
trol Council in Berlin (March 1) added a gratuitous insult to an 
already fatal injury when it “formally abolished” Prussia, the old 
homeland of the Knights of the Teutonic Order. This could have 
had no other motive than offending Germans unnecessarily for 
the applause of certain elements in New York. It was also a shock 

The Unnecessary War 


to all Christians, Catholic or Protestant, who have in their hearts 
the elementary instincts of Christ-like mercy (St. Matthew , V. 7), 
or know in spite of censorship the great facts of the history of 
Europe ( Chapter I ) . 

Our policy of terrifying the Germans spiritually, and ruining 
them economically, is understandable only to one who holds his 
eye in focus upon the nature of the High Command of the 
National Democratic Party. Vengeance and votes were the sire 
and dam of the foul monster of American cruelty to the Germans. 
In the accomplishment of our base purpose there was also a 
strange pagan self-immolation, for we would not let the West 
Germans all the way die and spent approximately a billion dol- 
lars a year (high as our debt was — and is) to provide for our 
captives the subsistence they begged to be allowed to earn for 
themselves! Our wanton dismantling of German industrial plants 
in favor of the Soviet as late as 1930 and our hanging of Ger- 
mans as late as 1951 (Chapter V, c), more than six years after the 
German surrender, had no other apparent motive than the alien- 
ation of the German people. Moreover, as the years pass, there 
has been no abandonment of our policy of keeping in Germany a 
number of representatives who, whatever their personal virtues, 
are personae non gratae to the Gennans (Chapters III and VI). 
Our many-faceted policy of deliberately alienating a potentially 
friendly people violates a cardinal principle of diplomacy and 
strategy and weakens us immensely to the advantage of Soviet 

The facts and conclusions thus far outlined in this chapter 
establish fully the validity of Churchill's phrase "The Unnecessary 
War.” The war was unnecessary in its origin, unnecessarily cruel 
in its prolongation, indefensible in the double-crossing of our 
ally Britain, criminal in our surrender of our own strategic secur- 
ity in the world, and all of this the more monstrous because 
it was accomplished in foul obeisance before the altar of anti- 
Christian power in America. 

The facts and conclusions outlined in this chapter raise the 
inevitable question: "How were such things possible?” The an- 
swer is the subject of the next chapter. 

Chapter V 


Over his head, face, and neck the medieval executioner some- 
times wore a loose-fitting hood of raven black. The grim garment 
was pierced bv two eye-holes through which the wearer, himself 
unrecognized, caused terror by glancing among the onlookers 
while he proceeded to fulfill his gruesome function. In similar 
fashion today, under a black mask of censorship, which hides their 
identity and their purpose, the enemies of our civilization are at 
once creating fear and undermining our Constitution and our 
heritage of Christian civilization. In medieval times the onlookers 
at least knew what was going on, but in modem times the people 
have no such knowledge. Without the ignorance and wrong judg- 
ing generated by this hooded propaganda, an alert public and 
an informed Congress would long since have guided the nation 
to a happier destiny. 

The black-out of truth in the United States has been effected 
(I) by the executive branch of the national government and (II) 
by non-government power. 


In the mention of government censorship, it is not implied 
that our national government suppresses newspapers, imprisons 
editors, or in other drastic ways prevents the actual publication of 
news which has already been obtained by periodicals. It is to be 
hoped that such a lapse into barbarism will never befall us. 

Nevertheless, since the mid-thirties, a form of censorship has 
been applied at will by many agencies of the United States gov- 
ernment. Nothing is here said against war-time censorship of 
information on United States troop movements, military plans, 
and related matters. Such concealment is necessary for our secu- 
rity and for tire surprise of the enemy, and is a vital part of the 


The Black Hood of Censorship 


art of war. Nothing is said here against such censorship as the 
government’s falsification of the facts about our losses on Decem- 
ber 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor ( Pearl Harbor, The Story of the 
Secret War, by George Morgenstem, The Devin-Adair Company, 
New York, 1947), though the falsification was apparently in- 
tended to prevent popular hostility against the administration 
rather than to deceive an enemy who already knew the facts. 

Unfortunately, however, government censorship has strayed 
from tire military field to the political. Of the wide-spread flagrant 
examples of government blackout of truth before, during, and 
after World War II the next five sections (a to e) are intended 
as samples rather than as even a slight survey of a field, the vast- 
ness of which is indicated by the following: 

Congressman Reed ( N. Y., Rep. ) last week gave figures 
on the number of publicity people employed in all the agen- 
cies of the Government. “According to the last survey made,” 
he said, "there were 23,000 permanent and 22,000 part-time" 
(From “Thought Control,” Human Events, March 19, 1952). 


Our grossest censorship concealed the Roosevelt administra- 
tion’s maneuvering our people into World War II. The blackout 
of Germany’s appeal to settle our differences has been fully 
enough presented in Chapter IV. Strong evidence of a similar 
censorship of an apparent effort of the administration to start a 
war in the Pacific is voluminously presented in Frederic R. San- 
born’s heavily documented Design for War (already referred to). 
Testimony of similar import lias been furnished by the war cor- 
respondent, author, and broadcaster, Frazier Hunt. Addressing 
the Dallas Womans Club late in 1950, he said, “American propa- 
ganda is whitewashing State Department mistakes . . . the free 
American mind has been sacrificed. . . We can’t resist because 
we don’t have facts to go on.” 

For a startling instance of the terrible fact of censorship in 
preparing for our surrender to the Soviet and the part played by 
Major General Clayton Bissell, A.C. of S,, G-2 (the Chief of Army 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Intelligence), Ambassador to Moscow W. Averell Harriman, and 
Mr. Elmer Davis, Director of the Office of War Information, see 
"The Truth About the Katyn Forest Massacre,” by Arthur Bliss 
Lane, former U. S. Ambassador to Poland ( The American Legion 
Magazine , February, 1952). There has been no official answer 
to Mr. Lane’s question: 

Who, at the very top levels of the United States Govern- 
ment, ordered the hiding of all intelligence reports unfavor- 
able to the Soviets, and the dissemination only of lies and 
communist propaganda? 

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes’s pamphlet, “Was Roosevelt 
Pushed Into War by Popular Demand in 1941?” ( Freemans Jour- 
nal Press , Cooperstown, New York, 1951, 25$) furnishes an im- 
portant observation on the fatal role of government censorship 
in undermining the soundness of the public mind and lists so 
well the significant matters on which knowledge was denied the 
people that an extensive quotation is here used as a summary of 
this section: 

Fundamental to any assumption about the relation of 
public opinion to political action is this vital consideration: 

It is not only what the people think, but the soundness of 
their opinion which is most relevant. The founders of our 
democracy assumed that, if public opinion is to be a safe 
guide for statecraft, the electorate must be honestly and ade- 
quately informed. I do not believe that any interventionist, 
with any conscience whatever, would contend that the Amer- 
ican public was candidly or sufficiently informed as to the 
real nature and intent of President Roosevelt’s foreign policy 
from 1937 to Pearl Harbor. Our public opinion, however accu- 
rately or inaccurately measured by the polls, was not founded 
upon full factual information. 

Among the vital matters not known until after the War 
was over were : ( 1 ) Roosevelt’s statement to President Benes 
in May, 1939, that the United States would enter any war to 
defeat Hitler; (2) the secret Roosevelt-Churchill exchanges 
from 1939 to 1941; (3) Roosevelt’s pressure on Britain, 
France and Poland to resist Hitler in 1939; (4) the fact that 
the Administration lawyers had decided that we were legally 

The Black Hood of Censorship S3 

and morally in the War after the Destroyer Deal of Septem- 
ber, 1940; (5) Ambassador Grew’s warning in January, 1941, 
that, if the Japanese should ever pull a surprise attack on the 
United States, it would probably be at Pearl Harbor, and that 
Roosevelt, Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Stark agreed that 
Grew was right; ( 6 ) the Anglo-American Joint-Staff Confer- 
ences of January-March, 1941; (7) the drafting and approval 
of the Washington Master War Plan and the Army-Navy 
Joint War Plan by May, 1941; (8) the real facts about the 
nature and results of the Newfoundland Conference of Au- 
gust, 1941; ( 9 ) the devious diplomacy of Secretary Hull with 
Japan; (10) Konoye’s vain appeal for a meeting with Roose- 
velt to settle the Pacific issues; (11) Roosevelt’s various strat- 
agems to procure an overt act from Germany and Japan; 

(12) Stimson s statement about the plan to maneuver Japan 
into firing the first shot; ( 13 ) the idea that, if Japan crossed 
a certain line, we would have to shoot; ( 14 ) the real nature 
and implications of Hull’s ultimatum of November 26, 1941; 
and ( 15 ) the criminal failure to pass on to Admiral Kim m el 

and General Short information about the impending Japanese 

If the people are to be polled with any semblance of a 
prospect for any intelligent reaction, they must know what 
they are voting for. This was conspicuously not the case in 
the years before Pearl Harbor. 


Almost, if not wholly, as indefensible as the secret maneuver- 
ings toward war, was the wholesale deception of the American 
people by suppressing or withholding facts on the eve of the 
presidential election of 1944. Three examples are here given. 

First of all, the general public got no hint of the significance 
of the pourparlers with the “left,” which led to the naming of 
the same slate of presidential electors by the Democratic, Amer- 
ican Labor, and Liberal parties in New York — a deal generally 
credited with establishing the fateful grip (Executive Order of 
December 30, 1944) of Communists on vital power-positions in 
our government. Incidentally the demands of the extreme left 
were unassailable under the “We need those votes” political phil- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

osophy; for Dewey, Republican, received 2,987,647 votes to 
2,478,598 received by Roosevelt, Democrat — and Roosevelt car- 
ried the state only with the help of the 496,405 American LaboT 
(Marcantonio) votes and the 829,236 Liberal votes, both of which 
were cast for the Roosevelt electors 1 

As another example of catering to leftist votes, the President 
arrantly deceived the public on October 28, 1944, when he 
‘'boasted of the amplitude of the ammunition and equipment 
which were being sent to American fighting men in battle.” The 
truth, however, was that our fighting men would have sustained 
fewer casualties if they had received some of the supplies which 
at the time were being poured into Soviet Russia in quantities 
far beyond any current Soviet need. It was none other than Mrs. 
Anna Rosenberg, “an indispensible and ineradicable New Deal 
ideologist, old friend of Mrs. Roosevelt" who, about a month be- 
fore the election, “went to Europe and learned that ammunition 
was being rationed" to our troops. “It apparently did not occur 
to Mrs. Rosenberg to give this information to the people before 
election day.” After the election and before the end of the same 
tragic November, the details were made public, apparently to 
stimulate production (all quotes from Westbrook Pegler’s column 
“Fair Enough,” Nov. 27, 1944, Washington Tunes-Herald and 
other papers ) . 

A third example of apparent falsification and deception had 
to do with President Roosevelt’s health in the summer and autumn 
of 1944. His obvious physical deterioration was noted in the 
foreign press and was reported to proper officials by liaison offi- 
cers to the White House (personal knowledge of the author). 
Indeed, it was generally believed in 1944, by those in a position 
to know, that President Roosevelt never recovered from his illness 
of December, 1943, and January, 1944, despite a long effort at 
convalescence in the spring weather at the “Hobcaw Barony” 
estate of his friend Bernard Baruch on the South Carolina coast. 
The imminence of the President’s death was regarded as so cer- 
tain that, after his nomination to a fourth term, Washington 
newspaper men passed around the answer “Wallace” to the 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


spoken question “Who in your opinion will be the next presi- 
dent?” Former Postmaster General James A. Farley has testified 
that Roosevelt “was a dying man” at the time of his departure for 
Yalta (“America Betrayed at Yalta,” by Congressman Lawrence 
H. Smith, National Republic, July, 1951). The widespread belief 
tli at Roosevelt was undergoing rapid deterioration was shortly 
to be given an appearance of certitude by the facts of physical 
decay revealed at tire time of his death, which followed his inau- 
guration by less than three months. 

Nevertheless, Vice Admiral Ross T. Mclntire, Surgeon-Gen- 
eral of the Navy and Roosevelt’s personal physician, was quoted 
thus in a Life article by Jeanne Perkins (July 21, 1944, p. 4) dur- 
ing the campaign: “The President’s health is excellent. I can 
say that unqualifiedly,” 


In World War II, censorship and falsification of one kind or 
another were accomplished not only in high government offices 
but in lower echelons as well. Several instances, of which three 
are here given, were personally encountered by the author. 

(1) Perhaps the most glaring was the omission, in a War De- 
partment report (prepared by two officers of Eastern European 
background), of facts uncomplimentary to Communism in vital 
testimony on UNRRA given bv two patriotic Polish-speaking 
Congressmen (both Northern Democrats) returning from an 
official mission to Poland for the House Foreign Affairs Commit- 
tee. An investigation was initiated but before it could be com- 
pleted both officers had been separated from the service. 

(2) News was slanted as much as by a fifty-to-one pro-Leftist 
ratio in a War Department digest of U. S. newspaper opinion 
intended, presumably, to influence thought including the thought 
of U. S. soldiers. For example, the leftist PM (circulation 137,- 
100) in one issue (Bureau of Publications Digest, March 14, 
1946) was represented by 616 columnar inches of quoted matter 
in comparison with 35Ja columnar inches from the non-leftist N. Y. 
World-Telegram (circulation 389,257 ). There was also a marked 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

regional slant. Thus in the issue under consideration 98.7 percent 
of the total space was given to the Northeastern portion of the 
United States, plus Missouri, while only 1.3 percent was given 
to the rest of the country, including South Atlantic States, Gulf 
States, Southwestern States, Prairie States, Rocky Mountain 
States, and Pacific Coast States. 

(3) Late in 1945 the former Secretary of War, Major General 
Patrick D. Hurley, resigned as Ambassador to China to tell the 
American government and the American people about Soviet 
Russia’s ability to “exert a potent and frequently decisive influ* 
ence in American politics and in the American government, in- 
cluding the Department of Justice” (for details, see Chapter 
VI, a). General Hurley was expected to reveal “sensational dis- 
closures” about certain members of the State Department’s Far 
Eastern staff in particular (quoted passages are from the Wash- 
ington Times-Herald, December 3, 1945); but he was belittled 
by high government agencies including the Chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and large sections 
of the press connived to smother his message. A scheduled Mili- 
tary Intelligence Service interview arranged with General Hurley 
by the author was canceled by higher authority. Be it said for 
the record, however, that the colonels and brigadier generals 
immediately superior to the author in Military Intelligence were 
eager seekers for the whole intelligence picture and at no time 
during the author’s conducting over 2,000 interviews made any 
effort to suppress the collection of information — except to trans- 
mit the order just referred to. 

Incidentally the brush-off of General Hurley suggests that the 
leftist palace guard which was inherited from the Roosevelt ad- 
ministration had acquired in eight months a firmer grip on Mr. 
Truman that it ever had on the deceased president until he 
entered his last months of mental twilight. Roosevelt’s confidence 
in Hurley is several times attested by General Elliott Roosevelt 
in As He Saw It . In Tehran the morning after the banquet at 
the Russian Embassy the President said: 

I want you to do something for me, Elliott. Go find Pat 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


Hurley, and tell him to get to work drawing up a draft memo- 
randum guaranteeing Iran’s independence. . . I wish I had 
more men like Pat, on whom I could depend. The men in the 
State Department, those career diplomats . . . half the time 
I can’t tell whether I should believe them or not (pp. 192- 

At the second Cairo Conference the President told his son: 

That Pat Hurley. . . He did a good job. If anybody can 
straighten out the mess of internal Chinese politics, he’s the 
man. . . Men like Pat Hurley are invaluable. Why? Because 
they’re loyal. I can give him assignments that I'd never give 
a man in the State Department because I can depend on 
him. . . Any number of times the men in the State Depart- 
ment have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold 
them up somehow, just because some of those career diplo- 
mats aren’t in accord with what they know I think (pp, 204- 

The above passages not only throw light on the enormity of 
the offense against America of preventing the testimony of Gen- 
eral Hurley, but give on the Department of State a testimony 
that cannot be regarded as other than expert. 


With the passing of die years, government censorship has 
become so much more intensive that it was a principal topic of 
die American Society oE Newspaper Editors at its meeting (April 
21, 1951 ) in Washington. Here is an excerpt ( The Evening Star, 
Washington, April 21, 1951) from the report of die Committee 
on Freedom of Information: 

Most Federal offices are showing exceptional zeal in cre- 
ating rules, regulations, directives, classifications and policies 
which serve to hide, color or channel news. . . 

We editors have been assuming that no one would dispute 
this premise: That when the people rule, they have a right 


88 The Iron Curtain Over America 

to know all their Government does. This committee finds 
appalling evidence that the guiding credo in Washington is 
becoming just the opposite: That it is dangerous and unwise 
to let information about Government leak out in any unpro- 
cessed form. 

In spite of this protest, President Truman on September 25, 
1951, extended government censorship drastically by vesting in 
other government agencies the authority and obligation to clas- 
sify information as "Top Secret,” “Secret,” and “Confidential” — 
a right and a responsibility previously enjoyed only, or princi- 
pally, by the departments of State and Defense. Again the 
American Society of Newspaper Editors made a protest (AP, 
September 25, 1951). The President assured the public that no 
actual censorship would be the outcome of his executive order. 
To anyone familiar with the use of “Secret” and “Confidential” 
not for security but for “playing safe” with a long or not fully 
understood document, or for suppressing information, the new 
order cannot, however, appear as other than a possible begin- 
ning of drastic government- wide censorship. 

The day after the President’s executive order, “Some 250 
members of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association” 
voiced their fears and their determination to fight against the 
“tightening down of news barriers” (AP, Sept. 1, 1951). Kent Coop- 
er, executive director of the Associated Press, and a well-known 
champion of the freedom of the press, said: Tm really alarmed 
by what is being done to cover up mistakes in public office.” 

The reaction, after the censorship order was several weeks 
old, was thus summarized by 17. S. News and World Report 
( October 19, 1951 ) : 

Newspaper men and others deeply fear that this authority 
may be broadened in application, used to cover up adminis- 
trative blunders and errors of policy, to conceal scandals now 
coming to fight, or to hide any information unfavorable to the 
administration, especially as the presidential campaign draws 

The Black Hood of Censorship 39 

It is to be hoped that the newspapers of the country will keep 
the issue alive in the minds of the American people. ( It is to be 
hoped also that they will take concerted action to deal with cen- 
sorship imposed by some of their advertisers. See pp. 90-93. ) 


During World War II, the Congress of the United States was 
the victim of censorship to almost as great a degree as the gen- 
eial public. By virtue of his official position, the author was sent 
by his superiors to brief members of the Congress about to go 
abroad, and he also interviewed them on their return from stra- 
tegic areas. Fie was also sometimes invited to a conference by 
members with whom he had in his official capacity become 
acquainted. He found them, including some Northern Demo- 
crats, restive at the darkness of censorship and indignant at the 
pressure upon them to vote funds for such projects as the exten- 
sion of UNRRA without any full knowledge of its significance. 
With regaid to secret data, the Congress was really in an awk- 
waid position. Because several Senators and Representatives, 
including members of the most sensitive committees, were indis- 
creet talkers and because of the possibility that some, like the 
Canadian Member of Parliament, Fred Rose (Rosenberg), might 
be subversive, the Congress could make no demands for full 
details on seciet matters. The alternative was the twilight in 

which patriotic Senators and Representatives had to work and 

Alarmed by the threat of Communism, however, the Con- 
gress has made investigations and published a number of pamph- 
lets and books (Superintendent of Documents, Government 
Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.) intended to acquaint the 
Ameiican people with the danger to this country from Commu- 
nists in general as well as from those imbedded in the depart- 
ments and agencies of the government. It is suggested that you 
write to your own Congressman or to one of your Senators for 
an up-to-date fist of these publications. One of a series of teii- 
cent books (see below in this chapter) is actually entitled “100 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Things You Should Know About Communism and Government.*’ 
How pathetic and how appalling that a patriotic Congress, de- 
nied precise facts even as the people are denied them, has to 
resort to such a means to stir the public into a demand for the 
cleanup of the executive branch of our government! 


Censorship, however, has by no means been a monopoly of 
the administration. Before, during, and since World War II, 
amid ever-increasing shouts about the freedom of the press, one 
of the tightest censorships in history has been applied by non- 
government power to the opinion-controlling media of the United 
States. A few examples follow under (a) newspapers, (b) motion 
pictures, and (c) books. These examples are merely samples and 
in no case are to be considered a coverage of the field. The 
subject of the chapter is concluded by observations on three other 
subjects (d, e, f) pertinent to the question of censorship. 


Newspaper censorship of news is applied to some extent in 
the selection, rejection, and condensation of factual AP, UP, 
INS, and other dispatches. Such practices cannot be given 
blanket condemnation, for most newspapers receive from the 
agencies far more copy than they can publish; a choice is inevi- 
tably hurried; and selection on the basis of personal and institu- 
tional preferences is legitimate — provided there is no blackout 
of important news. The occasional use of condensation to obscure 
the point of a news story is, however, to be vigorously con- 

Still worse is a deliberate news slanting, which is accom- 
plished by the “editing” — somewhere between fact and print — of 
such dispatches as are printed. During World War II the author 
at one time had under liis supervision seven War Department 
teletype machines and was astounded to learn that dispatches of 
the news agencies were sometimes re-worded to conform to the 
policy or the presumed policy of a newspaper, or to the pre- 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


sumed attitude of readers or advertisers, or possibly to the pre- 
judices of the individual journalist who did the re-wording! Thus, 
when Field Marshall von Mackensen died, a teletype dispatch 
described him as the son of a “tenant farmer.” This expression 
presumably contrary to the accepted New York doctrine that 
Germany was undemocratic, became in one great New York 
morning paper “son of a minor landholder” and in another it 
became "son of a wealthy estate agent.” It is not here implied 
that the principal owners of these papers knew of tin's or similar 
instances. The changed dispatches, however, show the power of 

the unofficial censor even when his infiltration is into minor 

The matter of securing a substantially different meaning by 
changing a word or a phrase was, so far as the author knows, 
first brought to the attention of the general public late in 1951 
when a zealous propagandist substituted “world” for “nation” in 
Lincoln s “Gettysburg Address.” The revamping of Lincoln's great 
words that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of 
freedom” would have made him a “one worlder,” except for the 
fact that some Americans knew the Gettysburg Address by heart! 
Their protests not only revealed the deception in this particular 
instance, but brought into daylight a new form of falsification 
that is very hard to detect — except, of course, when the falsifiers 
tamper with something as well known as the Gettysburg AddressI 

Occasionally during World War II the abuse of rewriting dis- 
patches was habitual. One foreign correspondent told the author 
Umt the correspondent’s paper, a “liberal” sheet which was a 
darling of our government, virtually threw away his dispatches, 
and wrote what^ they wished and signed Iris name to it. Be it 
said to this man s credit that he resigned in protest. 

Sometimes the censorship is effected not by those who handle 
news items, but by the writer. Thus the known or presumed atti- 
tude of Iris paper or its clientele may lead a correspondent to 
send dispatches designed, irrespective of truth, to please the 
recipients. Tliis practice, with especial emphasis on dispatches 
from West Germany, was more than once noted by the news- 
letter, Human Events {1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N. W., Wash- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

ington 6, D. C. ) during the year 1950. See the issue of December 
20, 1950, which contains an analysis of the dim-out in the United 
States on the German reaction to the naming of General Eisen- 
hower, the first implementer of the Morgenthau Plan, as Supreme 
Commander of our new venture in Europe. 

In the early summer of 1951, the American public was treated 
to a nation-wide example of one form of distortion or falsification 
in certain sections of the press and by certain radio commenta- 
tors. This was the presentation as fact of the individual column- 
ist’s or commentator’s thesis that General MacArthur wanted 
war, or wanted World War III, or something of the sort — a 
thesis based on the General’s request for the use of Nationalist 
Chinese troops as allies and for the removal of the blindfold 
which prevented his even reconnoitering, much less bombing, the 
trans-Yalu forces of the enemy armies, vastly more numerous 
than his own (see Chapter VI, d, below), who were killing his 
men. The presentation of such a thesis is a writer’s privilege, 
which should not be denied him, but it should be labeled as a 
viewpoint and not as a fact. 

One powerful means of effecting censorship in the United 
States was mentioned as early as 1938 by William Allen White, 
nationally known owner and editor of the Emporia (Kansas) 
Gazette, in a speech at the University of Pennsylvania. These 
are his words: 

The new menace to the freedom of the press, a menace to 
this country vastly more acute than the menace from govern- 
ment, may come through the pressure not of one group of 
advertisers, but a wide sector of advertisers. Newspaper ad- 
vertising is now placed somewhat, if not largely, through 
nationwide advertising agencies. . . As advisers the advertis- 
ing agencies may exercise unbelievably powerful pressure 
upon newspapers. . . (quoted from Beaty’s Image of Life, 
Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1940). 

Details of the pressure of advertisers on newspaper publishers 
rarely reach the public. An exception came in January, 1946, when 
the local advertising manager of the Washington Times-Herald 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


wrote in his paper as follows: ‘'Under the guise of speaking of 
his State Department career in combination with a preview of 
FM and Television Broadcasting, Mr. Ira A. Hirschmann today, 
at a meeting of the Advertising Club of Washington at the 
Statler Hotel, asked the Jewish merchants to completely boycott 
the Times-Herald and the New York Daily News." It is interest- 
ing to note that Mrs. Eleanor M. Patterson, the owner of the 
Times-Herald, published the following statement. “I have only 
this comment to make: This attack actually has nothing to do 
with racial or religious matters. It is merely a small part of a 
planned, deliberate Communist attempt to divide and destroy 
the United States of America.” She refused to yield to pressure, 
and before long those who had withdrawn their advertisements 
asked that the contracts be renewed. The outcome prompts the 
question: May the advertiser not need the periodical more than 
the periodical needs the advertiser? 


Propaganda attitudes and activities in the United States 
motion picture output cannot be adequately discussed here. The 
field is vast and the product, the film, cannot, like the files of 
newspapers or shelves of books, be consulted readily at an inves- 
tigator’s convenience. Some idea of the power of organized 
unofficial censorship may be gained, however, from the vicissi- 
tudes of one film which has engaged the public interest because 
it is based on a long-recognized classic by the most popular 
novelist of the English-speaking world. 

As originally produced, the J. Arthur Rank motion picture, 
Oliver Twist, was said to be faithful to the text of the Dickens 
novel of that name. The picture was shown in Britain without 
recorded disorder, but when it reached Berlin, ‘‘the Jews and 
police fought with clubs, rocks and firehoses around the Karbel 
tli eater in Berlin s British sector. The door of the theater was 
“smashed by Jewish demonstrators who five times broke through 
police cordon established around playhouse.” These things hap- 
pened although “not once in the picture . . , was Fagin called a 
Jew. Needless to say, the Jews prevailed over the Berlin police 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

and the British authorities, and the exhibitors ceased showing the 
film (aU quotes from tire article, “Fagrn in Berlin Provokes a 
Riot.” Life, March 7, 1949, pp. 38-39). 

The barring of Mr. Rank’s Oliver Twist from its announced 
appearance (1949) in the United States is explained thus by 
Arnold Forster in his book, A Measure of Freedom (Doubleday 
and Co., Inc., 1950, p. 10): 

American movie distributors refused to become involved 
iD the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after 
the Anti-Defamation League and others expressed die fear 
that the film was harmful. The Rank Organization withdrew 
the picture in the United States. 

Finally it was announced in the spring of 1951 that the British 
film “after seventy-two eliminations” and with a prologue by 
Dr. Everett R. Clinchy of the National Conference of Christians 
and Jews might be “accepted as a filming of Dickens without 
anti-semitic intentions” ( Dallas Morning News). But is there 
any Charles Dickens left anywhere around? 

On the question of Communism in Hollywood, there is avail- 
able in pamphlet form a remarkably informative broadcast of a 
dialogue ( Facts Forum Radio Program , WFAA, Dallas, January 
11, 1952) between Mr. Dan Smoot of Dallas and the motion 
picture star, Adolphe Menjou. Replying dramatically to a series 
of questions climactically arranged, Mr. Menjou begins with 
Lenin’s “We must capture the cinema,” shows Americans their 
“incredible ignorance” of Communism, lists Congressional com- 
mittees which issue helpful documents, and recommends a boy- 
cott of “morion pictures which are written by Communists, pro- 
duced by Communists, or acted in by Communists,”— the term 
Communists including those who support the Communist cause. 
For a free copy of this valuable broadcast, write to Facts Forum, 
718 Mercantile Bank Building, Dallas, Texas. See also Red 
Treason in Hollywood by Myron C. Fagan (Cinema Educational 
Guild, P. O. Box 8655, Cole Branch, Hollywood 46, California), 
and do not miss “Did the Movies Really Clean House?” in the 
December, 1951, American Legion Magazine. 

The Black Hood of Censorship 



Censorship in the field of books is even more significant than 
in periodicals, motion pictures, and radio (not here considered), 
and a somewhat more extended discussion is imperative. 

With reference to new books, a feature article, “Why You 
Buy Books That Sell Communism,” by Irene Corbally Kuhn in 
the American Legion Magazine for January, 1951, shows how 
writers on the staffs of two widely circulated New York book 
review supplements are influential in controlling America’s book 
business. To school principals, teachers, librarians, women’s clubs 
— indeed to parents and all other Americans interested in chil- 
dren, who will be the next generation — this article is necessary 
reading. It should be ordered and studied in full and will accord- 
ingly not be analyzed here ( American Legion Magazine, 580 
Fifth Avenue, New York 18, New York; 10£ per copy; see also 
“The Professors and the Press” in the July, 1951, number of this 
magazine). Important also is “A Slanted Guide to Library Selec- 
tions,” by Oliver Carlson, in The Freeman for January 14, 1952. 

Dealing in more detail with books in one specific field, the 
China theater, where our wrong policies have cost so many young 
American lives, is an article entitled “ The Gravediggers of Amer- 
ica, Part “The Book Reviewers Sell Out China,” by Ralph de 
Toledano ( The American Mercury, July, 1951,, pp. 72-78. See also 
Part II in the August number), Mr. de Toledano explains that 
America’s China policy — whether by coincidence or as “part of 
a sharply conceived and shrewdly carried out plan” — has led to 
the fact that China is Russia’s.” Mr. de Toledano then turns his 
attention to the State Department: 

Meanwhile the real lobby — the four-plus propagandists 
of a pro-Communist line in Asia — prospered. Its stooges were 
able to seize such a stranglehold on the State Department’s 
Far Eastern division that to this day, as we slug it out with 
the Chinese Reds, they are still unbudgeable. Working de- 
votedly at their side has been a book-writing and book- 
reviewing cabal 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

With regard to books, book reviewers, and book-reviewing 
periodicals, Mr. de Toledano gives very precise figures. He also 
explains the great leftist game in which one pro-Communist 
writer praises the work of another — an old practice exposed by 
the author of The Iron Curtain Over America in the chapter, 
“Censorship, Gangs, and the Tyranny of Minorities” in his book 
Image of Life (pp. 146-147): 

Praise follows friendship rather than merit. Let a novelist, 
for instance, bring out a new book. The critic, the playwright, 
the reviewers, and the rest in his gang hail it as the book of 
the year. Likewise all will hail the new play by the play- 
wright — and so on, all the way around the circle of member- 
ship. Provincial reviewers will be likely to fall in step. The 
result is that a gang member will sometimes receive national 
acclaim for a work which deserves oblivion, whereas a non- 
member may fail to receive notice for a truly excellent work. 
Such gangs prevent wholly honest criticism and are bad at 
best, but they are a positive menace when their expressions 
of mutual admiration are poured forth on obscene and sub- 
versive books. 

For still more on the part played by certain book-reviewing 
periodicals in foisting upon the American public a ruinous pro- 
gram in China, see “A Guidebook to 10 Years of Secrecy in Our 
China Policy,” a speech by Senator Owen Brewster of Maine 
(June 5, 1951). The tables on pp. 12 and 13 of Senator Brewster’s 
reprinted speech are of especial value. 

The unofficial arbiters and censors of books have not, how- 
ever, confined themselves to contemporary texts but have taken 
drastic steps against classics. Successful campaigns early in the 
current century against such works as Shakespeare’s play. The 
Merchant of Venice, are doubtless known to many older readers 
of The Iron Curtain Over America. The case of Shakespeare was 
summed up effectively by George Lyman Kittredge ( The Mer- 
chant of Venice, by William Shakespeare, edited by George 
Lyman Kittredge, Ginn and Company, Boston, 1945, pp. ix-x), 
long a professor of English in Harvard University: 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


One tiling is clear, however: The Merchant of Venice is 
no anti-Semitic document; Shakespeare was not attacking the 
Jewish people when he gave Shylock the villain’s rdle. If so, 
he was attacking the Moors in Titus Andronicus, the Span- 
iards in Much Ado, the Italians in Cymheline, the Viennese 
in Measure for Measure, the Danes in Hamlet, the Britons in 
King Lear, the Scots in Macbeth, and the English in Richard 
the Third. 

Much more significant than attacks on individual master- 
pieces, however, was a subtle but determined campaign begun a 
generation ago to discredit our older literature under charges of 
Jingoism and didacticism ( Image of Life , Chapter III). For 
documentary indication of a nation-wide minority boycott of 
books as early as 1933, write to the American Renaissance Book 
Club (P. O. Box 1316, Chicago 90, Illinois). 

Still it was not until World War II that the manipulators of 
the National Democratic Party hit on a really effective way of 
destroying a large portion of our literary heritage and its high 
values of morality and patriotism. Since most classics have a 
steady rather than a rapid sale and are not subject to quick 
reprints even in normal times, and since many potential readers 
of these books were not in college but in the armed forces, few 
editions of such works were reprinted during the war. At this 
juncture the government ordered plates to be destroyed on all 
books not reprinted within four years. The edict was almost a 
death blow to our culture, for as old books in libraries wear out 
very few of them can be reprinted at modem costs for printing 
and binding. Thus, since 1946 the teacher of advanced college 
English courses has had to choose texts not, as in 1940, from 
those classics which he prefers but from such classics as are 
available. The iniquitous practice of destroying plates was reas- 
serted by “Directive M-65, dated May 31, 1951, of the National 
Production Authority,” which provides that “plates which have 
not been used for more than four years or are otherwise deemed 
to be obsolete” must be delivered “to a scrap metal dealer” (let- 
ter to the author from Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., June 15, 
1951). In this connection, Upton Close wrote ( Radio Script, 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

August 12, 1951 ) that he “was a writer on the Orient who stood 
in the way of the Lattimore-Hiss gang and Marshall’s giving of 
China to the Communists,” and that such an order “wiped out” 
all his books on China and Japan. Mr. Close continued as follows: 

The order to melt book plates on the pretense that copper 
is needed for war is the smartest way to suppress books ever 
invented. It is much more clever than Hitler’s burning of 
books. The public never sees the melting of plates in private 
foundries. All the metal from all the book plates in America 
would not fight one minor engagement. But people do not 
know that. They do not even know that book plates have 
been ordered melted down! 

Censorship is applied even to those classics which are re- 
printed. Let us look at only one author who lived long ago, 
Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340-1400). In both of the two fluent and 
agreeable verse translations at hand as this is written, the fact 
that the Knight belonged to the Teutonic Order (Chapter I) is 
eliminated in the wording. Perhaps this is excusable, for the 
translator into verse faces many difficulties. Of different import, 
however, are the omissions in two other editions. The Heritage 
Press edition of the Canterbury Tales omits with no explanation 
the “Tale of the Prioress,” the one in which Chaucer, more than 
550 years ago, happened to paint — along with the several Gen- 
tile poisoners and other murderers of his stories — one unflat- 
tering portrait, a version of the popular ballad “Sir Hugh and 
the Jew’s Daughter,” of one member of the Jewish race, and that 
one presumably fictitious! Professor Lumiansky’s edition (Simon 
and Schuster, 1941, preface by Mark Van Doren) of the Canter- 
bury Tales likewise omits the Prioress’s talc, and tells why: 
“Though anti-Semitism was a somewhat different thing in the 
fourteenth century from what it is today, the present-day reader 
has modem reactions in literature no matter when it w r as written. 
From this point of view the Prioress’s story of the little choir-boy 
who is murdered by the Jew's possesses an unpleasantness which 
overshadows its other qualities” (op. cit., p. xxiii). 

No criticism of the translators, editors, and publishers is here 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


implied. They may have merely bent to pressure as so many 
other publishers and so many periodicals have done — to the 
author’s certain knowledge. One cannot, however, escape the 
question as to what would happen to American and English litera- 
ture if persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, Italian or other 
descent, took the same attitude toward “defamation” of persons 
of their “races,” including those who lived more than 500 years 
ago! There would be no motion pictures or plays, and except for 
technical treatises there would be no more books. 

One of the most horrible results of the types of censorship 
illustrated above is the production, by' writers without honor, of 
w'orks which will "pass” the unofficial censor. Tire result is a vast 
output of plays, non-fiction prose, and especially novels, worth- 
less at best and degraded and subversive at the worst, which 
will not be reviewod here. 

Time and space must be given, however, to the blackout of 
truth in history. Fortunately the way has been illuminated by 
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes in his pamphlet The Struggle 
Against the Historical Blackout (Freeman’s Journal Press, Coop- 
erstown, N. Y. 1951, 50tf). Professor Barnes defines the histori- 
cal craft’s term “revisionism” as the “readjustment of historical 
writing to historical facts relative to the background and causes 
of the first World War” and later equates the term "revisionism” 
with “truth.” 

After mentioning some of the propaganda lies of World War 

I and the decade thereafter and citing authorities for the fact 
that “the actual causes and merits of this conflict were very close 
to the reverse of the picture presented in the political propa- 
ganda and historical writings of the war decade,” Professor 
Barnes states — again with authorities and examples — that by 
1928 “everyone except the die-hards and bitter-enders in the his- 
torical profession had come to accept revisionism, and even the 
general public had begun to think straight in the premises.” 

Unfortunately, how’ever, before the historical profession had 
got to be as true to history as it was prior to 1914, World War 

II was ushered in and propaganda again largely superseded 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

truth in the writing of history. Here are several of Professor 
Bames’s conclusions: 

If the world policy of today [1951] cannot be divorced 
from the mythology of the 1940’s, a third World War is inevi- 
table. . . History has been the chief intellectual casualty of 
the second World War and the cold war which followed. . . 

In this country today, and it is also true of most other nations, 
many professional historians gladly falsify history quite vol- 
untarily. . . 

Why? To get a publisher, and to get favorable reviews for 
their books? The alternative is either oblivion or the vicious attack 
of a “smearbund,” as Professor Bames puts it, of unofficial cen- 
sors "operating through newspaper editors and columnists, 
hatchet-men’ book reviewers, radio commentators, pressure- 
group intrigue and espionage, and academic pressures and fears.” 
The "powerful vested political interest” is strong enough to 
smother books by a truthful writer. “Powerful pressure groups 
have also found the mythology helpful in diverting attention 
from their own role in national and world calamity.” 

Professor Bames is not hopeful of the future: 

Leading members of two of the largest publishing houses 
in the country have frankly told me that, whatever their per- 
sonal wishes in the circumstances, they would not feel it ethi- 
cal to endanger their business and the property rights of their 
stockholders by publishing critical books relative to American 
foreign policy since 1933. And there is good reason for their 
hesitancy. The book clubs and the main sales outlets for 
books are controlled by powerful pressure groups which are 
opposed to truth on such matters. These outlets not only re- 
fuse to market critical books in this field but also threaten 
to boycott other books by those publishers who defy their 
blackout ultimatum. 

Bruce Barton (San Antonio Light , April 1, 1951) expresses 
the same opinions in condensed form and dramatic style, and 
adds some of the results of the “historical blackout”: 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


We have turned our backs on history; we have violated 
the Biblical injunction, "remove not the ancient landmarks”; 
we have lost our North Star. We have deliberately changed 
the meaning of words. . . More and more bureaucracy, tighter 
and tighter controls over Freedom and Democracy. Lying to 
the people becomes conditioning the public mind. Killing 
people is peace. To be for America First is to be an undesir- 
able citizen and a social outcast. . . Crises abroad that any 
student of history would normally anticipate, hit the State 
Department and the Pentagon as a complete surprise. 

Thus the study of falsified history takes its toll even among 
fellow-workers of the falsifiers. 


The propagation of Marxism and other alien ideas is accom- 
plished not only by persons in those businesses which control 
public opinion but also by the actual infiltration of aliens, or 
their captives among Americans of old stock, into the periodical- 
selecting and book-selecting staffs of a wide variety of institu- 
tions. The penetration is especially notable in the book-selecting 
personnel of bookstores, libraries, schools, and colleges. 

The National Council for American Education (1 Maiden 
Lane, New York 38, N. Y. ) is effectively showing the grip which 
persons tolerant of Communism and hostile to the American gov- 
ernment have upon U. S. universities, and is also exposing Com- 
munist-in clined textbooks used in schools and colleges. Needless 
to say, such great facts of history as those outlined in Chapters I 
and II, above, have not been found in school history texts exam- 
ined by the author. The menace is recognized by our own United 
States Congress, which offers a pertinent booklet entitled “100 
Things You Should Know About Communism and Education” 
(Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C., lOtf), The question of Communist workers 
in the ranks of American clergy is not to be taken up here. Suffice 
it to say that many well-meaning but gullible members of the 
clergy have been lured into various "American” and “National” 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

and other well sounding conferences, councils, and committees, 
many (but not all) of which are subversive. 

In this connection, persons favorable to Western Christian 
civilization should be warned about carelessly joining an organi- 
zation, even though it has an innocent-sounding or actually a 
seemingly praiseworthy name. The following organizations by 
their names suggest nothing subversive, yet each of them is listed 
by tlie Senate of the United States (“Hearings before the Sub- 
committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, United States Senate,” 81st Congress, Part 3, 
pp. A8 and A9) as being not merely subversive but Communist: 

Abraham Lincoln School, Chicago, 111. 

American League Against War and Fascism 
American Committee for Protection of Foreign Bora 
American Peace Mobilization 
American Russian Institute (of San Francisco) 

American Slav Congress 

American Youth Congress 

American Youth for Democracy 

Civil Rights Congress and its affiliates 

Congress of American Women 

Council for Pan-American Democracy 

Jefferson School of Social Science, New York City 

Jewish Peoples Committee 

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee 

League of American Writers 

Nature Friends of America (since 1935) 

Ohio School of Social Sciences 
Peoples Educational Association 
Philadelphia School of Social Science and Art 
Photo League (New York City) 

School of Jewish Studies, New York City 
Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade 
Walt Whitman School of Social Science, Newark, N. J. 
Waslu'ngton Bookshop Association 
Wisconsin Conference on Social Legislation 
Workers Alliance 

The Black Hood of Censorship 


Each of the above-named organizations is also listed, along 
with many others, in the valuable book, Guide to Subversive 
Organizations and Publications (May 14, 1951), issued by the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities (82nd Congress). 
As one example of the menace that may lurk behind an innocent 
name, read the Committee’s “Report on the Congress of American 
Women” ( October 23, 1949, Superintendent of Documents, Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. ). 

The patriotic American should not be deceived by the fact 
that there is no pressure-group censorship on the open expression 
of pro-Communist views (witness the continued publication of 
the official Communist Party organ, The Daily Worker, New 
York) or on gross indecency, pseudo-Freudian or other (witness 
some titles on your drugstore rack of 25-cent books ) . The obvious 
lack of censorship in these fields merely helps conceal it else- 
where. “Corrupt and conquer” is an ancient adage. Thus, accord- 
ing to the columnist, Constantine Brown ( The Evening Star, 
Washington, D. C., December 27, 1948), “The Kremlin men rely 
on subversion and immorality. The only reason they have not 
plunged the world into another blood bath is that they hope 
moral disintegration will soon spread over the western world.” 

The Kremlin masters are right. Men cannot live by bread, by 
science, by education, or by economic might. As Washington 
knew, when he was found on his knees in prayer at Valley Forge, 
they can live only by a body of ideals and a faith in which they 
believe. These tilings our unofficial censors would deny us. 

To all “censorships,” governmental and other, there is an 
obvious corollary. As long as information received by the public 
— including those who poll public opinion — is, in vital aspects, 
incomplete and is often distorted for propaganda purposes, the 
most well-intentioned polls intended to reflect public opinion 
on foreign affairs or domestic affairs are to be relied on only 
with extreme caution. The perhaps unavoidable “leading ques- 
tion” tendency in certain types of opinion polls has rarely been 
illustrated better than in an article “What the GOP Needs to Win 
in 1952” by George Gallup in the September 25, 1951, issue of 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

Look. Legitimately laying aside for the purposes of the article 
the commonly mentioned Republican presidential possibilities, 
Eisenhower, Dewey, Taft, Stassen, and Warren, “the American 
Institute of Public Opinion . . . chose nine Americans who might 
be dark horses in the GOP race.” The poll people have, of course, 
a perfect right to choose such questions as they wish and to select 
names of individuals about whom to ask questions. The nine 
chosen in the poll under discussion were Paul G. Hoffman, Henry 
Cabot Lodge, Jr., Charles E. Wilson (of General Electric), James 
Bryant Conant, Robert Patterson, James H. Duff, Margaret Chase 
Smith, Alfred E. Driscoll, and John J. McCloy. Five of these are 
or have been functionaries under the New Deal and scarcely one 
of them is a Republican in the historical sense of the term. More- 
over, in dealing with the possibility of appealing to independent 
voters, why was no mention made of Senators Mundt, Brewster, 
Bridges, Martin, Bricker, Jenner, Capehart, Dirksen, Ecton, Milli- 
kin, Nixon, and Knowland, all of whom have drawn praise outside 
the Republican party? As to “independent” voters of leftist lean- 
ings, they may storm into precinct conventions or vote in Repub- 
lican primaries to force the choice of a candidate to their liking, 
but how many will vote for the Republican nominee, and, espe- 
cially, how many will vote for non-leftist candidates for the Senate 
and the House in the general election? 


Several of the instances of censorship mentioned in this Chap- 
ter call attention to the deplorable fact that many persons in the 
United States who have fought Communism aggressively with 
facts have been branded as anti-Semitic. Under this form of cen- 
sorship, it is permissible to rail vaguely against Communism in 
the abstract, particularly if unnamed Communists are denounced 
along with “Fascists,” “Nazis,” and “America Firsters”; but a 
speaker who calls by name the foreign-born organizers of Com- 
munistic atomic espionage in Canada (1946), or mentions the 
common alien background of the first group of Americans con- 
victed of atomic espionage ( 1950, 1951 ) is, in the experience of 

The Black Hood of Censorship 

the author, subject to a vicious heckling from the floor and to 
other forms of attempted intimidation on the charge of anti- 
Semitism. For information on Communist tactics, every American 
should read “Menace of Communism,” a statement of J. Edgar 
Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, before 
the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Rep- 
resentatives, March 26, 1947. Mr. Hoover said in part: 

Anyone who opposes the American Communist is at once 
branded as a “disrupter,” a “Fascist,” a “Red baiter,” or a 
“Hitlerite,” and becomes the object of a systematic campaign 
of character assassination. This is easily understood because 
the basic tactics of the Communist Party are deceit and 

See also, “Our New Privileged Class,” by Eugene Lyons ( The 
American Legion Magazine , September, 1951). 

The label of anti-Semitic is tossed not only at those who men- 
tion Jewish Communists by name; it is tossed also at the oppo- 
nents of government ventures which are Je wish- sponsored or 
Jewish-endorsed. For an official Jewish attitude toward an oppo- 
nent of American involvement in the program of political Zion- 
ism and an opponent of the Morgenthau plan, see Arnold For- 
sters A Message of freedom (pp. 62 to 86). In this connection, it 
is interesting to recall that in the 1940 campaign the third term 
presidential candidate made much sport of “Martin, Barton, and 
Fish.” At a conference of Democrats at Denver, Colorado, launch- 
ing the 1952 campaign, Secretary of Agriculture Brannan recalled 
the success of the phrase and suggested for a similar smear in 
1952 the “off-key quartet” of “Taft and Martin, McCarthy and 
Cain.” Would an opposing candidate dare crack back with 
humorous jibes at “Frankfurter, Morgenthau, and Lehman?” Your 
answer will reveal to you something you should know as to who 
wields power in the United States. 

A zealous approach to securing the co-operation of Gentiles 
is shown in an article, “Glamorous Purim Formula: Exterminate 
Anti-Semitic Termites. . . ,” by Rabbi Leon Spitz ( The American 
Hebrew , March 1, 1946): “American Jews . . . must come to 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

The Black Hood of Censorship 




grips with our contemporary anti-Semites. We must fill our jails I 

with anti-Semitic gangsters. We must fill our insane asylums with 
anti-Semitic lunatics. ...” j 

The Khazar Jew’s frequent equating of anti-Communism with 
so-called “anti-Semitism” is unfortunate in many ways. In the 
first place, it is most unfair to loyal American Jews. Charges of 
“anti-Semitism” are absurd, moreover, because the Khazar Jew 
is himself not a Semite (Chapter II, above). The blood of Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob flows not at all (or to a sporadic degree, 
as from immigrant merchants, fugitives, etc. ) in the veins of the 
Jews who have come to America from Eastern Europe. On the 
contrary, the blood of Old Testament people does flow in the 
veins of Palestine Arabs and others who live along the shores of 
the eastern Mediterranean. Palestinians, true descendants of Old 
Testament people, are refugees today from the barbarity of non- 
Semitic Khazars, who are the rapers — not the inheritors — of the 
Holy Land! 

Charges of “anti-Semitism” are usually made by persons of 
Khazar stock, but sometimes they are parroted by shallow people, 
or people who bend to pressure in Protestant churches, in educa- 
tional institutions, and elsewhere. Seeking the bubble reputation 
in the form of publicity, or lured by thirty pieces of silver, many 
“big-time” preachers have shifted the focus of their “thinking” 
from the “everlasting life” of St. John III, 16, to the “no man 
spake openly of him” of St. John VII, 13. In their effort to avoid 
giving offense to non-Christians, or for other reasons, many 
preachers have also placed their own brand of “social-mindedness 
over individual character,” their own conception of “human wel- 
fare over human excellence,” and, in summary, “pale sociology 
over Almighty God” ( quotes from “This morning” by John Temple 
Graves, Charleston, S. C., News and Courier , February 10, 1951). 

Similar forces inimical to Western Christian civilization are at 
work in England. In that unhappy land, worn out by wars and 
ridden almost to death by Attlee’s socialist government (1945- 
1951), the “Spring 1950 Electoral Register” form dropped the 
traditional term “Christian name” for the new “Forename” pre- 
sumably inoffensive to British Jews, Communists, atheists, and 

other non-Christians. In America, of course, “Christian name” 
and “Family name” have long since yielded to “first,” “middle,” 
and “last.” These instances are trivial, if you like, but though mere 
straws, they show the way the wind is blowing. 

Realizing the vast penetration of anti-Christian power — com- 
munist, atheist, and what not — into almost every thought-influ- 
encing activity in America, a commendable organization known 
as The Christophers (18 East 48th St., New York 17, New York) 
has suggested a Christian counter-penetration into vital spots for 
shaping the future of our children and our land. Here in their 
own words, with emphasis supplied by their own italics, is a 
statement of the purpose of the Christophers: 

Less than 1% of humanity have caused most of the worlds 
recent major troubles. This handful, which hates the basic 
truth on which this nation is founded, usually strives to get 
into fields that touch the lives of all people: (1) education, 

(2) government, (3) the writing end of newspapers, maga- 
zines, books, radio, motion pictures and television, (4) trade 
unions, (5) social service, and (6) library work. 

If another 1% go (or encourage others to go) as Christo- 
phers or Christ-bearers into these same 6 fields and work as 
hard to restore the fundamental truth which the other 1% are 
working furiously to eliminate, we will soon be on the high 
road to lasting peace. 

Each Christopher works as an individual. He takes out 
no membership, attends no meetings, pays no dues. Tens of 
thousands have already gone as Christ-bearers into the mar- 
ketplace. Our aim is to find a million . Positive, constructive 
action is needed. c Tt is better to light one candle than to curse 
the darkness” 

The Christophers publish “News Notes” (monthly, free of 
charge). By these notes (circulation 700,000) and by several 
books including Careers That Change Your World and Govern- 
ment Is Your Business , their effort has already made substantial 
progress. Their movement is worthy of support and imitation. Be 
it noted that the Christophers are not “anti-” anything. Their 
program is positive — they are for Christian civilization. 



The Iron Curtain Over America 


This chapter may well be closed by a reference to the most 
far-reaching plan for thought-control, or censorship of men’s 
minds, ever attempted in the United States. Mrs. Anna Rosen- 
berg’s triumphal entry into the Pentagon in late 1950 was not her 
first. With the administration’s blessing, she appeared there once 
before to present a plan for giving each World War II soldier an 
ideological disinfecting before releasing him from service, she to 
be in charge, presumably, of the ideas to be removed and those 
to be inculcated. Fortunately (or unfortunately, according to 
viewpoint) all general officers in the Pentagon were summoned 
to hear Mrs. Rosenberg, and their unconcealed disgust, along 
with the humorous and devastating attack of the Washington 
Times-Herald , killed the proposal. A recent account of Mrs. 
Rosenberg’s “scheme to establish reorientation camps for Ameri- 
can soldiers at the close of the World War II, on the theory they 
would be unfit to resume their normal lives at home” appeared 
in the Washington Times-Herald for November 13, 1950. 

The public is entitled to know what facts have been blacked 
out and what ideological doctrines have been inculcated in propa- 
ganda fed to our soldiers by the foreign-bom Mrs. Rosenberg 
while in the manpower saddle in the wider field of our unified 
Department of Defense. In a song by William Blake used in their 
successful campaign in 1945, British Socialists pledged that they 
would not abstain from “mental fight” until they had made 
“Jerusalem” of England (Time, November 5, 1951). According 
to Who’s Who in America (Vol. 25), Mrs. Rosenberg’s interests 
include “Mental Hygiene.” Can it be that her strong efFort for 
lowering the draft age to eighteen was due to the known fact 
that boys of that age are more susceptible than older boys to 
propaganda? Who is it that has enjoyed the highest military posi- 
tion held by woman since Joan of Arc led the French armies 
against the English in the fifteenth century? For a partial answer, 
see the article on Mrs. Rosenberg in the Readers Digest of Feb- 
ruary, 1951. For a portrait of another modern woman who has 
wielded power over armed men, see the similar article on Anna 
Rabinsohn Pauker in the same magazine, April, 1949. 

The Black Hood of Censorship 

The issue — so alive in American hearts — of using the draft, 
or universal military training, for sinister political propaganda 
was bluntly stated by Major General William B. Ruggles, Editor- 
in-Cliief of the Dallas Morning News, on March 3, 1951: “If the 
nation is to draft or even to enlist its manpower in national 
defense, the nation owes some sort of guarantee to the cannon 
fodder that it will not be sacrificed to forward devious methods 
of foreign policy or of war policy that somebody in high office 
is unwilling to lay on the line. They [U. S. soldiers] face the 
hazards of death with sublime courage. But they have a right 
to demand that their own leaders must not stack the cards or 
load the dice against them.” 

In 1952, however, the “thought-controllers” grew bolder. “The 
Pentagon received a jolt in the past week when it scanned a 
proposal from the State Department that the Army should install 
‘political officers,’ one to each unit down to the regimental level.” 
( Human Events, April 9, 1952). Comparing the startling proposal 
with the Soviet use of “political commissars,” Human Events 
states further that “the current daring attempt .... to gain control 
over the minds of youths in uniform” is “embodied in the bill for 
Universal Military Training, which was shaped and supported by 
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Anna Rosenberg.” 

Surely censorship is at its peak in America today. We must 
pass quickly into a thought-dictatorship which out-Stalins Stalin 
— or begin now to struggle as best we can for our ancient liber- 
ties of political freedom and freedom of thought. 

In the temple in ancient Jerusalem, Christ said: “And ye shall 
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (St. John, 
VIII, 32). This is true not only for religion but for national 
safety. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, wrote recently: “Communism can be defeated only 
by the truth” (The Educational Forum, May, 1950). 

To become free then we must demand the truth from a gov- 
ernment which spends monthly a king’s ransom in propaganda 
to cover its mistakes and sugar-coat its policies. We must achieve, 
also, a relaxation of that unofficial censorship which perverts our 
school books, distorts our histories and our classics, and denies us 
vital facts about world affairs. 


Chapter VI 



For many of President Truman’s early mistakes in foreign 
policy, he cannot rightly be blamed. As a Senator he had special- 
ized in domestic problems and was not at any time a member 
of the Foreign Relations Committee. Nor had he by travel or 
scholarship built up a knowledge of world affairs. Elevated to 
second place on the National Democratic ticket by a compromise 
and hated by the pro- Wallace leftists around Franklin Roosevelt, 
he was snubbed after his election to the Vice-Presidency in 1944 
and was wholly ignorant of the tangled web of our relations with 
foreign countries when he succeeded to the Presidency on April 
12, 1945 — midway between the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. 

Not only was Mr. Truman inexperienced in the field of for- 
eign affairs; it has since been authoritatively stated that much 
vital information was withheld from him by the hold-over Presi- 
dential and State Department cabals. This is not surprising in 
view of the deceased President’s testimony to his son Elliott on 
his difficulty (Chapter V) in getting the truth from “the men in 
the State Department, those career diplomats.” Significantly, the 
new President was not allowed to know of his predecessor’s 
reputed despair at learning that his wisecracks and blandishing 
smiles had not induced Stalin to renounce the tenets of bloody 
and self-aggrandizing dialectic materialism, a state-religion of 
which he was philosopher, pontiff, and commander-in-chief. 

President Truman brought the war to a quick close. His 
early changes in the cabinet were on the whole encouraging. The 
nation appreciated the inherited difficulties under which the 
genial Missourian labored and felt for him a nearly unanimous 
good will. 

In the disastrous Potsdam Conference decisions (July 17- 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

August 2, 1945), however, it was evident (Chapter IV) that 
anti-American brains were busy in our top echelon. Our subse- 
quent course was equally ruinous. Before making a treaty of 
peace, we demobilized — probably as a part of the successful 
Democratic-leftist political deal of 1944 — in such a way as to 
reduce our armed forces quickly to ineffectiveness. Moreover, as 
one of the greatest financial blunders in our history, we gave 
away, destroyed, abandoned, or sold for a few cents on the dollar 
not merely the no longer useful portion of our war materiel but 
many items such as trucks and precision instruments which we 
later bought back at market value! These things were done in 
spite of the fact that the Soviet government, hostile to us by its 
philosophy from its inception, and openly hostile to us after the 
Tehran conference, was keeping its armed might virtually intact. 

Unfortunately, our throwing away of our military potential 
was but one manifestation of the ineptitude or disloyalty which 
shaped our foreign policy. Despite Soviet hostility, which was 
not only a matter of old record in Stalin’s public utterances, but 
was shown immediately in the newly launched United Nations, 
we persisted in a policy favorable to world domination by the 
Moscow hierarchy. Among the more notorious of our pro-Soviet 
techniques was our suggesting that “liberated” and other nations 
which wanted our help should be ruled by a coalition govern- 
ment including leftist elements. This State Department scheme 
tossed one Eastern European country after another into the 
Soviet maw, including finally Czechoslovakia. This foul doctrine 
of the left coalition and its well-known results of infiltrating Com- 
munists into key positions in the governments of Eastern Europe 
will not be discussed here, since the damage is done beyond 
repair as far as any possible immediate American action is con- 
cerned. Discussion here is limited to our fastening of the Soviet 
clamp upon the Eastern Hemisphere in three areas still the sub- 
ject of controversy. These are (a) China, (b) Palestine, and 
(c) Germany. The chapter will be concluded by some observa- 
tions ( d ) on the war in Korea. 


The Truman policy on China can be understood only as the 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

end-product of nearly twenty years of American-Chinese rela- 
tions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt a deep attachment to 
the Chiangs and deep sympathy for Nationalist China — feelings 
expressed as late as early December, 1943, shortly after the Cairo 
Declaration (November 26, 1943), by which Manchuria was to 
be “restored” to China, and just before the President suffered the 
mental illness from which he never recovered. It was largely 
this friendship and sympathy which had prompted our violent 
partisanship for China in the Sino-Japanese difficulties of the 
1930's and early 1940's. More significant, however, than our 
freezing of Japanese assets in the United States, our permitting 
American aviators to enlist in the Chinese army, our gold and 
our supplies sent in by air, by sea, and by the Burma road, was 
our ceaseless diplomatic barrage against Japan in her role as 
Chinas enemy (see United States Relations With China With 
Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949, Department of State, 
1949, p. 25 and passim ) . 

When the violent phase of our already initiated political war 
against Japan began with the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 
1941, we relied on China as an ally and as a base for our defeat 
of the island Empire. On March 6, 1942, Lieutenant General 
Joseph W. Stilwell “reported to Generalissimo Chiang” (op. tit., 
p. xxxix ) , General Stilwell was not only “Commanding General 
of United States Forces in the China-Burma-India Theater” but 
was supposed to command “such Chinese troops as Generalissimo 
Chiang Kai-Shek might assign him” (op. tit., p. 30) and in other 
ways consolidate and direct the Allied war effort. Unfortunately, 
General Stilwell had formed many of his ideas on China amid a 
coterie of leftists led by V/ Agnes Smedley as far back as 1938 when 
he, still a colonel, was a U. S. military attache in Hankow, China 
(see The China Story , by Freda Utley, Henry Regnery Company, 
Chicago, 1951, $3.50). It is thus not surprising that General Stil- 
well quickly conceived a violent personal animosity for the anti- 
Communist Chiang (Saturday Evening Post, January 7, 14, 21, 
1950 ) . This personal feeling, so strong that it resulted in amazing 
vituperative poetry (some of it reprinted in the Post), not only 
hampered the Allied war effort but was an entering wedge for 


vicious anti-Chiang and pro-Communist activity which was des- 
tined to change completely our attitude toward Nationalist China. 

The pro-Communist machinations of certain high placed 
members of the Far Eastern Bureau of our State Department and 
of their confederates on our diplomatic staff in Chungking (for 
full details, see The China Story) soon became obvious to those 
in a position to observe. Matters were not helped when “in the 
spring of 1944, President Roosevelt appointed Vice-President 
Henry A. Wallace to make a trip to China” ( United States Rela- 
tions With China, p. 55). Rebutting what he considered Mr, 
Wallace’s pro-Communist attitude, Chiang “launched into a 
lengthy complaint against the Communists, whose actions, he 
said, had an unfavorable effect on Chinese morale. , . . The Gen- 

eralissimo deplored propaganda to the effect that they were 
nothing but agrarian democrat^ and remarked that they were 
more communistic than the Russians” ( op. cit., p. 56 ) . 

Our Ambassador to China, Clarence E. Gauss, obviously dis- 
turbed by the Wallace mission and by the pro-Communist atti- 
tude of his diplomatic staff, wrote as follows (op. cit,, p. 561) 
to Secretary Hull on August 31, 1944: 

« • « 

China should receive the entire 

and sympa- 

thy of the United States Government on the domestic prob- 
lem of Chinese Communists. Very serious consequences for 
China may result from our attitude. In urging that China 
resolve differences with the Communists, our Government’s 
attitude is serving only to intensify the recalcitrance of the 
Communists. The request that China meet Communist de- 
mands is equivalent to asking China ’s unconditional surren- 
der to a party known to be under a foreign power’s influence 
(the Soviet Union), 

With conditions in China in the triple impasse of Stilwell- 
Chiang hostility, American pro-Communist versus Chinese anti- 
Communist sentiment, and an ambassador at odds with his subor- 
dinates, President Roosevelt sent General Patrick J. Hurley to 
Chungking as his Special Representative “with the mission of 
promoting harmonious relations between Generalissimo Chiang 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

and General Stilwell and of performing certain other duties” ( op. 
Git., p. 57). Ambassador Gauss was soon recalled and General 
Hurley was made Ambassador. 

General Hurley saw that the Stilwell-Chiang feud could not 
be resolved, and eventually the recall of General Stilwell from 
China was announced. With regard, however, to our pro-Com- 
munist State Department representatives in China, Ambassador 
Hurley met defeat. On November 26, 1945, he wrote President 
Truman, who had succeeded to the Presidency in April, a letter 
of resignation and gave his reasons: 

. . . The astonishing feature of our foreign policy is the 
wide discrepancy between our announced policies and our 
conduct of international relations. For instance, we began the 
war with the principles of the Atlantic Charter and democ- 
racy as our goal. Our associates in the war at that time gave 
eloquent, lip service to the principles of democracy. We fin- 
ished the war in the Far East furnishing lend-lease supplies 
and using all our reputation to undermine democracy and 
bolster imperialism and Communism. . . 

... it is no secret that the American policy in China did 
not have the support of all the career men in the State De- 
partment. . . Our professional diplomats continuously advised 
the Communists that my efforts in preventing the collapse of 
the National Government did not represent the policy of the 
United States. These same professionals openly advised the 
Communist armed party to decline unification of the Chinese 
Communist Army with the National Army unless the Chinese 
Communists were given control. . . 

Throughout this period the chief opposition to the accom- 
plishment of our mission came from the American career 
diplomats in the Embassy at Chungking and in the Chinese 
and Far Eastern Divisions of the State Department. 

I requested the relief of the career men who were oppos- 
ing the American policy in the Chinese Theater of war. 
These professional diplomats were returned to Washington 
and placed in the Chinese and Far Eastern Divisions of the 
State Department as my supervisors. Some of these same 
career men whom I relieved have been assigned as advisors 
to the Supreme Commander in Asia ( op. cit *, pp. 581 - 582 ). 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

President Truman accepted General Hurley’s resignation with 
alacrity. Without a shadow of justification, the able and patriotic 
Hurley was smeared with the implication that he was a tired and 
doddering man, and he was not even allowed to visit the War 
Department, of which he was former Secretary, for an interview. 
This affront to a great American ended our diplomatic double 
talk in China. With forthrightness, Mr. Truman made his deci- 
sion. Our China policy henceforth was to be definitely pro-Com- 
munist. The President expressed his changed policy in a “state- 
ment” made on December 15, 1945. Although the Soviet was 
pouring supplies and military instructors into Communist-held 
areas, Mr. Truman said that the United States would not offer 
“military intervention to influence the course of any Chinese 
internal strife.” He urged Chiang’s government to give the Com- 
munist “elements a fair and effective representation in the Chi- 
nese National Government.” To such a “broadly representative 
government” he temptingly hinted that “credits and loans” would 
be forthcoming (op. cit., pp. 608-609). President Truman’s amaz- 
ing desertion of Nationalist China, so friendly to us throughout 
the years following the Boxer Rebellion (1900), has been thus 
summarized (NBC Network, April 13, 1951) by Congressman 
Joe Martin: 

President Truman, on the advice of Dean Aeheson, an- 
nounced to the world on December 15, 1945, that unless 
communists were admitted to the established government of 
China, aid from America would no longer be forthcoming. 

At the same time, Mr. Truman dispatched General Marshall 
to China with orders to stop the mopping up of communist 
forces which was being carried to a successful conclusion by 
the established government of China. 

Our new Ambassador to China, General of the Army George 
C. Marshall, conformed under White House directive (see his 
testimony before the Combined Armed Services and Foreign 
Relations Committees of the Senate, May, 1951 ) ' to the dicta of 
the State Department’s Communist-inelined camarilla, and made 
further efforts to force Chiang to admit Communists to his gov- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

emment in the "effective” numbers, no doubt, which Mr. Truman 
had demanded in his “statement” of December 15. The great 
Chinese general, however, would not be bribed by promised 
“loans” and thus avoided the trap with which our State Depart- 
ment snared for Communism the states of Eastern Europe. He 
was accordingly paid off by the mishandling of supplies already 
en route, so that guns and ammunition for those guns did not 
make proper connection, as well as by the eventual complete 
withdrawal of American support as threatened by Mr. Truman. 

For a full account of our scandalous pro-Communist moves in 
denying small arms ammunition to China; our charging China 
$162.00 for a bazooka (whose list price was $36.50 and “surplus” 
price to other nations was $3.65) when some arms were sent; and 
numerous similar details, see The China Story, already referred to. 

Thus President Truman, Ambassador Marshall, and the State 
Department prepared the way for the fall of China to Soviet 
control. They sacrificed Chiang, who represented the Westernized 
and Christian element in China, and they destroyed a friendly 
government, which was potentially our strongest ally in the world 

— stronger even than the home island of maritime Britain in this 
age of air and guided missiles. The smoke-screen excuse for our 
policy — namely that there was corruption in Chiang’s govern- 
ment — is beyond question history’s most glaring example of the 
pot calling the kettle black. For essential background material, 
see Shanghai Conspiracy by Major General Charles A. Willough- 
by, with a preface by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur 
(Dutton, 1952). 

General Ambassador Marshall became Secretary of State in 
January, 1947. On July 9, 1947, President Harry S. Truman 
directed Lieutenant General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who had 
served for a time as “Commander-in-Chief of American Forces 
in the Asian Theater” after the removal of Stilwell, to “proceed 
to China without delay for the purpose of making an appraisal 
of the political, economic, psychological and military situations 

— current and projected.” Under the title, “Special Representa- 
tive of the President of the United States,” General Wedemeyer 
worked with the eight other members of his mission from July 16 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

to September 18 and on September 19 transmitted his report 
( United States Relations with China, pp. 764-814) to the appoint- 
ing authority, the President. 

In a section of his Report called “Implications of ‘No Assist- 
ance’ to China or Continuation of ‘Wait and See’ Policy,” General 
Wedemeyer wrote as follows: 

To advise at this time a policy of "no assistance” to China 
would suggest the withdrawal of the United States Military 
and Naval Advisory Groups from China and it would be 
equivalent to cutting the ground from under the feet of the 
Chinese Government. Removal of American assistance, with- 
out removal of Soviet assistance, would certainly lay the 
country open to eventual Communist domination. It would 
have repercussions in other parts of Asia, would lower Amer- 
ican prestige in the Far East and would make easier the 
spread of Soviet influence and Soviet political expansion not 
only in Asia but in other parts of the world. 

Here is General Wedemeyer’s conclusion as to tire strategic 
importance of Nationalist China to the United States: 

Any further spread of Soviet influence and power would 
be inimical to United States strategic interests. In time of 
war the existence of an unfriendly China would result in 
denying us important air bases for use as staging areas for 
bombing attacks as well as important naval bases along the 
Asiatic coast. Its control by the Soviet Union or a regime 
friendly to the Soviet Union would make available for hos- 
tile use a number of warm water ports and air bases. Our 
own air and naval bases in Japan, Ryukyus and the Philip- 
pines would be subject to relatively short range neutralizing 
air attacks. Furthermore, industrial and military development 
of Siberia east of Lake Baikal would probably make the 
Manchurian area more or less self-sufficient. 

Here are the more significant of the Wedemeyer recommen- 

It is recommended: 

That the United States provide as early as practicable 
moral, advisory and material support to China in order to 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

prevent Manchuria from becoming a Soviet satellite, to bol- 
ster opposition to Communist expansion and to contribute to 
the gradual development of stability in China. . , 

That arrangements be made whereby China can pur- 
chase military equipment and supplies (particularly motor 
maintenance parts), from the United States. 

That China be assisted in her efforts to obtain ammunition 
immediately. . . 

The [sic] military advice and supervision be extended in 
scope to include field forces, training centers and particu- 
larly logistical agencies. 

Despite our pro-Communist policy in the previous twenty 
months, the situation in China tvas not beyond repair at the time 
of the Wedemetjer survey. In September, 1947, the “Chiang 
government had large forces still under arms and was in control 
of all China south of the Yangtze River, of much of North China, 
with some footholds in Manchuria” (W. H. Chamberlin, Human 
Events, July 5, 1950). General Wedemeyer picked 39 Chinese 
divisions to be American-sponsored and these were waiting for 
our supplies and our instructors — in case the Wedemeyer pro- 
gram was accepted. 

But General Wedemeyer had reported that which his su- 
periors did not ivish to hear. His fate was a discharge from 
diplomacy and an exile from the Pentagon. Moreover, the Wede- 
meyer Report was not released, until August, 1949. 

Meanwhile, in the intervening two years our pro-Communist 
policy of withdrawing assistance from Chiang, while the Soviet 
rushed supplies to his enemies , had tipped the scales in favor of 
those enemies, the Chinese Communists. 

Needless to say, under Mr. Dean Acheson, who succeeded 
Marshall as Secretary of State (January, 1949), our pro-Soviet 
policy in China was not reversed! Chiang had been holding on 
somehow, but Acheson slapped down his last hope. In fact, our 
Secretary of State — possibly by some strange coincidence — 
pinned on the Nationalist Government of China the term “re- 
actionary” (August 6, 1949), a term characteristically applied by 
Soviet stooges to any unapproved person or policy, and said 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


explicitly that the United States would give the Nationalist Gov- 
ernment no further support. 

Meanwhile, the Soviet had continued to supply the Chinese 
Communists with war materiel at a rate competently estimated 
at eight to ten times tire amount per month we had furnished — 
at the peak of our aid — to Chiang’s Nationalists. Chiang’s troops, 
many of them without ammunition, were thus defeated, as 
virtually planned by our State Department, whose Far Eastern 
Bureau was animated by admirers of the North Chinese Com- 
munists. But the defeat of Chiang was not the disgrace his 
enemies would have us believe. His evacuation to Formosa and 
his reorganization of his forces on that strategic island were far 
from contemptible achievements. Parenthetically, as our State 
Departments wrong-doing comes to light, there appears a corol- 
lary' re-evaluation of Chiang. In its issue of April 9, 1951, Life 
said editorially' that “Now we have only to respect the unique 
tenacity of Chiang Kai Shek in his long battle against Commun- 
ism and take full advantage of whatever the Nationalists can do 
now to help us in this struggle for Asia.” It should be added 
here that any' idea of recognizing Communist China as the rep- 
resentative government of China is absurd. According to a Soviet 
Politburo report ( This Week, September 30, 1951 ) the member- 
ship of the Chinese Communist Party is 5,800,000. The remain- 
der of China’s 450,000,000 or 475,000,000 people, in so far as they 
are actually under Communist control, are slaves. 

But — back to the chronology of our "policy” in the Far East. 

On December 23, 1949, the State Department sent to five 
hundred American agents abroad (New York Journal- American, 
June 19, 1951, p. 18) a document entitled “Policy' Advisory Staff, 
Special Guidance No. 38, Policy Information Paper — Formosa.” 
As has been stated in many newspapers, the purpose of this policy 
memorandum was to prepare the world for the United States 
plan for yielding Formosa (Taiwan, in Japanese terminology) to 
the Chinese Communists. Here are pertinent excerpts from the 
surrender document which, upon its release in June, 1951, was 
published in full in a number of newspapers: 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Loss of the island is widely anticipated, and the manner 
in which civil and military conditions there have deteriorated 
under the Nationalists adds weight to the expectation. . . 

Formosa, politically, geographically, and strategically is 
part of China in no way especially distinguished or impor- 
tant. . . 

Even the small United States military advisory group sent 
there at British government request was completely with- 
drawn a year ago. . . 

Treatment: ... All material should be used best to coun- 
ter the impression that ... its [Formosa’s] loss would seri- 
ously damage the interests of the United States or of other 
countries opposing Communism [and that] the United States 
is responsible for or committed in any way to act to save 
Formosa. . . 

Formosa has no special military significance. . . 

China has never been a sea power and the island is of no 
special strategic advantage to Chinese armed forces. 

This State Department policy paper contains unbelievably 
crass lies such as the statement that the island of Formosa is, in 
comparison with other parts of China, “in no way especially dis- 
tinguished or important” and the claim that the island would be 
“of no special strategic advantage” to its Communist conquerors. 

It contains an unwarranted slam at our allies, the Chinese Na- 
tionalists, and strives to put upon our ally Britain the onus for 
our slight interest in the island — an interest the "policy memo- 
randum” was repudiating! It is hard to see how the anonymous 
writer of such a paper could be regarded as other than a scoun- 
drel. No wonder the public was kept in ignorance of the paper’s 
existence until the MacArthur investigation by the Senate raised 
momentarily the curtain of censorship! 

In a “Statement on Formosa” (New York Times, January 0, 

1950), President Truman proceeded cautiously on the less ex- 
plosive portions of the "Policy Memorandum,” but declared For- 
mosa a part of China — obviously, from the context, the China of 
Mao Tse-Tung — and continued: "The United States has no desire 
to obtain special rights or privileges or to establish military bases 
on Formosa at this time. Nor does it have any intention of utiliz- 




Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

irig its armed forces to interfere in the present situation.” The 
President’s statement showed a dangerous arrogation of author- 
ity, for the wartime promises of the dying Roosevelt had not 
been ratified by the United States Senate, and in any case a part 
of the Japanese Empire was not at the personal disposal of an 
American president. More significantly, the statement showed 
an indifference to the safety of America or an amazing ignorance 
of strategy, for any corporal in the U. S. army with a map before 
him could see that Formosa is the virtual keystone of die U. S. 
position in the Pacific. It was also stated by our government 
officially and definitely that our aid to South Korea would be 
"a limited number of arms for internal security.” 

Six days later (January 12, 1950) in an address at a National 
Press Club luncheon. Secretary Acheson announced a “new moti- 
vation of United States foreign policy,” which confirmed the 
President’s statement a week before, including specifically die 
"hands off” policy in Formosa. Acheson also expressed the belief 
that we need not worrv about the Communists in China since 
they would naturally grow away from the Soviet on account of 
the Soviet’s “attaching” North Cliina territory to the great Mos- 
cow-ruled imperium (article by Walter H. Waggoner, New York 
Times , January 13, 1950). 

Also, according to the New York Times (whose issues from 
January 3 to January 10, 1950, are important reading for students 
of our Far Eastern “policy”), Mr. Acheson said “he had been in 
the business of foreign relations too long to believe anyone could 
be sure of results, and he had been dealing with die subject 
matter of die Far East too briefly to believe in the infallibility of 
his own judgment.” 

These sentiments must have appealed to Governor Thomas E. 
Dewey, of New York, for at Princeton University on April 12 he 
called for Republican support of die Truman-Acheson foreign 
policy and specifically commended the appointment of John Fos- 
ter Dulles (for the relations of Dulles with Hiss, see Chapter 
VIII) as a State Department “consultant.” 

Mr. Acheson’s partly concealed and partly visible maneuver- 

122 The Iron Curtain Over America 

ings were thus summed up bv Walter Winchell (Dallas Times - 
Herald, April 16, 1951): 

These are the facts. Secretary Acbeson ... is on record 
as stating we would not veto Red China if she succeeded in 
getting a majority vote in the UN. . . As another step, Secre- 
tary Acheson initiated a deliberate program to play down the 
importance of Formosa. 

Mr. Winchell also mentioned Senator Knowland’s “documen- 
tary' evidence" that those who made State Department policy had 
been instructed by Secretary Acheson to “minimize the strategic 
importance of Formosa.” 

All of this was thrown into sharp focus by President Truman 
when he revealed in a press conference (May 17, 1951) that his 
first decision to fire General MacArthur a year previously had 
been strengthened when the Commander in Japan protested in 
the summer of 1950 that the proposed abandonment of Formosa 
would weaken the U. S. position in Japan and tire Philippines! 

“No matter how hard one tries,” The Freeman summarized on 
June 4, 1951, “there is no way of evading the awful truth -.The 
American State Department wanted Marxist Communists to win 
for Marxism and Communism in China” Also, The Freeman 
continued, “On his own testimony. General Marshall supported 
our pro-Marxist China policy with his eyes unblinkered with 

Thus, in the first half of 1950, our Far Eastern policy, made 
by Acheson and approved by Truman and Dewey, was based on 
(1) the abandonment of Formosa to the expected conquest by 
Chinese Communists, (2) giving no battle weapons to the Na- 
tionalist Chinese or to the South Koreans, in spite of the fact that 
the Soviet was known to be equipping the North Koreans with 
battle weapons and with military skills, (3) the mere belief — at 
least, so stated — of our Secretary of State, self-confessedly igno- 
rant of the matter, that the Communists of China would be- 
come angry with the Soviet. The sequel is outlined in section 
(d) below. 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 



Our second great mistake in foreign policy — unless votes in 
New York and other Northern cities are its motivation — was our 
attitude toward the problem of Palestine. In the Eastern Medi- 
terranean on the deck of the heavy cruiser, U. S. S. Quincy, which 
was to bring him home from Yalta, President Roosevelt in Feb- 
ruary, 1945, received King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. According 
to General Elliott Roosevelt (As He Sflto It, p. 245): “It bad been 
Father’s hope that he w’ould be able to convince Ibn Saud of the 
equity of the settlement in Palestine of the tens of thousands of 
Jews driven from their European homes.” But, as the ailing 
President later told Bernard Baruch, “of all the men he had talked 
to in his life, he had got least satisfaction from this iron-willed 
Arab monarch.” General Roosevelt concludes thus: "Father ended 
by promising Ibn Saud that he would sanction no American 
move hostile to the Arab people.” This may be considered the 
four-term President’s legacy on the subject, for in less than two 
months death had completed its slow assault upon his frame and 
his faculties. 

But the Palestine problem, like the ghost in an Elizabethan 
drama, w'ould not stay “down.” In the post-war years (1945 and 
after), Jewish immigrants mostly from the Soviet Union or satel- 
lite states poured into the land once known as “Holy” These 
immigrants were largely Marxist in outlook and principally of 
Khazar antecedents. As the immigration progressed, the situation 
between Moslems and this new type of Jew became tense. 

The vote-conscious American politicians became interested. 
After many vacillations between “non-partition” which was recom- 
mended by our strategists and “partition” which was clamored 
for by many American Jewish organizations and highly placed 
individual Jews, the United States — which has many Zionist 
voters and few Arab voters — decided to sponsor the splitting of 
Palestine, which was predominantly Arab in population, into 
Arab and Jewish zones. In spite of our lavish post-war tossing 
out of hundreds of millions and sometimes billions to almost any 
nation — except a few pet “enemies” such as Spain — for almost 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

any purpose, the United Nations was inclined to disregard our 
sponsorship and reject the proposed new member. On Wednes- 
day, November 26, 1947, our proposition received 25 votes out of 
57 (13 against, 17 abstentions, 2 absent) and was defeated. Thus 
the votes had been taken and the issue seemed settled. But, nol 
Any reader who wishes fuller details should by all means 
consult the microfilmed New York Times for November 26-30, 
and other pertinent periodicals, but here are the highlights: 

The United Nations General Assembly postponed a vote 
on the partition of Palestine yesterday after Zionist support- 
ers found that they still lacked an assured two-thirds majority 
(article by Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times, November 
27, 1947). 

Yesterday morning Dr. Aranha was notified by Siamese 
officials in Washington that the credentials of the Siamese 
delegation, which had voted against partition in the Com- 
mittee, had been canceled (November 27, 1947). 

Since Saturday [November 22] the United States Delega- 
tion has been making personal contact with other delegates 
to obtain votes for partition. . . The news from Haiti . . . 
would seem to indicate that some persuasion has now been 
brought to bear on home governments . . . the result of to- 
day’s vote appeared to depend on what United States repre- 
sentatives were doing in faraway capitals (from an article 
by Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times, November 28, 

The result of our pro-'Tsraeli” pressures, denounced in some 
instances by representatives of the governments who yielded, 
was a change of vote by nine nations: Belgium, France, Haiti, 
Liberia, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, 
and the Philippines. Chile dropped — to “not voting” — from the 
pro-“IsraeIi” twenty-five votes of November 26, and the net gain 
for U. S.-'Tsraeli” was 8. Greece changed from "not voting” to 
“against,” replacing the dismissed Siamese delegation, and the 
“against” vote remained the same, 13. Thus the New York Times 
on Sunday, November 30, carried the headline "ASSEMBLY 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


The Zionist Jews of Palestine now had their seacoast and 
could deal with the Sovietized Black Sea countries without further 
bother from the expiring British mandate. The selection of im- 
migrants of which over-populated “Israel” felt such great need 
was to some extent, if not entirely, supervised by the countries 
of origin. For instance, a high “Israeli” official visited Bucharest 
to coordinate with the Communist dictator of Rumania, Ana 
Rabinsohn Pauker, the selection of immigrants for “Israel.” “Sov- 
iet Bloc Lets Jews Leave Freely and Take Most Possessions to 
Israel,” the New York Times headlined (November 26, 1948) 
a UP dispatch from Prague. 

The close ties between Communism and “Israel” were soon 
obvious to any penetrating reader of the New York Times. A 
notable example is afforded in an article (March 12, 1948) by 
Alexander Feinberg entitled “10,000 in Protest on Palestine Here: 
Throng Undaunted by Weather Mustered by Communist and 
Left-Wing Labor Leaders.” Here is a brief quotation from this 
significant article: 

Youthful and disciplined Communists raised their battle 
cry of “solidarity forever” as they marched. . . The parade 
and rally were held under the auspices of the United Com- 
mittee to Save the Jewish State and the United Nations, 
formed recently after the internationally minded Communists 
decided to “take over” an intensely nationalistic cause, the 
partition of Palestine. The grand marshal of the parade was 
Ben Gold, president of the Communist-led International Fur 
and Leather Workers Union, CIO. 

With the Jewish immigrants to Palestine came Russian and 
Czechoslovak ( Skoda ) arms. “Israel Leaning Toward Russia, Its 
Armorer,” the New York Herald-Tribune headlined on August 
5, 1948. Here are quotations on the popularity of the Soviet in 
“Israel” from Correspondent Kenneth Eilby’s wireless dispatch 
from Tel Aviv: 

Russian prestige has soared enormously among all politi- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

cal factions. . . Certain Czech arms shipments which reached 
Israel at critical junctures of the war, played a vital role in 
blunting the invasion s five Arab armies. . . The Jews, who 
are certainly realists, know that without Russia’s nod, these 
weapons would never have been available. 

Mr. Bilby found that “the balance sheet" read "much in Rus- 
sia s favor and found Ills conclusion ’evidenced in numerous 
ways — in editorials in the Hebrew press praising the Soviet 
Union, and also "in public pronouncements of political and 
governmental leaders.” Mr. Bilby concluded also that the “politi- 
cal fact” of “Israeli” devotion to the Soviet might "color the 
future of the Middle East” long after the issues of the day were 
settled. Parenthetically, the words of the Herald-Tribune cor- 
respondent were prophetic. In its feature editorial of October 
10, 1951, the Dallas Morning News commented as follows on the 
announced determination of Egypt to seize the Sudan and the 
Suez Canal: 

Beyond question, the Egyptian move is concerned with 
the understandable unrest stirred in the Arab world by the 
establishment of the new State of Israel. The United Nations 
as a whole and Britain and the United States in particular 
did that. The Moslem world could no more accept equably 
an effort to turn back the clock 2,000 years than would this 
country agree to revert to the status quo of 1776. 

Showing contempt, and her true colors, ‘‘Israel” voted with the 
Soviet Union and against the United States on the question of 
admitting Communist China to the UN (broadcast of Lowell 
Thomas, CBS Network, November 13, 1951). Thus were we 
paid for the immoral coercion by which we got “Israel” into the 
United Nations — a coercion which had given the whole world, 
in the first instance, a horrible but objective and above-board 
example of the Truman administration’s conception of elections! 

But back to our chronology. In 1948, strong with Soviet 
armor and basking in the sunshine of Soviet sympathy, “Israeli” 
troops mostly bom in Soviet-held lands killed many Arabs and 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 127 

drove out some SSO.OOO others, Christian and Moslem. These 
wretched refugees apparently will long be a chief problem of the 
Arab League nations of the Middle East. Though most Ameri- 
cans are unaware, these brutally treated people are an American 
problem also, for the Arabs blame their tragedy in large part on 
“the Americans — for pouring money and political support to the 
Israelis; Harry Truman is the popular villain” (“The Forgotten 
Arab Refugees,” by James Bell, Life, September 17, 1951). With 
such great sympathy for the Soviet Union, as shown above, it is 
not surprising that “Israel” at once began to show features which 
are extremely leftist — to say the least. For instance, on his return 
from “Israel,” Dr. Frederick E. Reissig, executive director of the 
Washington (D. C. ) Federation of Churches, “told of going to 
many co-operative communities. . . Land for each Tdbbutz’ — as 
such communities are called — is supplied by the government. 
Everything — more or less — is shared by the residents” ( Mary 
Jane Dempsey in Washington Times-Herald, April 24, 1951). 
For fuller details, see “The Kibbutz” by John Hersey in The 
New Yorker of April 19, 1952. 

After the “Israeli” seizure of the Arab lands in Palestine, there 
followed a long series of outrages including the bombings of the 
British Officers’ Club in Jerusalem, the Acre Prison, the Arab 
High er Command Headquarters in Jaffa, the Semiramis Hotel, 
etc. These bombings were by “Jewish terrorists” ( World Al- 
manac, 1951). The climax of the brutality in “Israel” was the 
murder of Count Bemadotte of Sweden, the United Nations 
mediator in Palestine! Here is the New York Times story (Tel 
Aviv, September 18, 1948) bv Julian Louis Meltzer: 

Count Folke Bemadotte, United Nations Mediator for 
Palestine, and another United Nations official, detached from 
the French Air Force, were assassinated this afternoon 
[September 17], within the Israeli-held area of Jerusalem. 

Also, according to the New York Times, “Reuters quoted a 
Stem Group spokesman in Tel Aviv as having said, ‘I am satis- 
fied that it has happened’.” A United Nations truce staff an- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

nouncement confirmed the fact that Count Bernadotte had been 
“killed by two Jewish irregulars,” who also killed the United 
Nations senior observer, Col. Andre Pierre Serot, of the French 
Air Force. 

Despite the fact that the murderers were Jews, and that the 
murdered UN officers were from countries with no appreciable 
political influence in the United States, American reaction to the 
murder of the United Nations mediator was by no means favor- 
able. It was an election year and Dewey droned on about 
“unity” while Truman trounced the “do-nothing Republican 80th 
Congress.” For a month after the murders neither of them fished 
in the putrid pond of “IsraelT-dominated Palestine. 

Strangely enough, it was Dewey who first threw in his little 
worm on a pinhook. 

In a reply to a letter from the Constantinople-born Dean 
Alfange, Chairman of the Committee which founded the Liberal 
Party of the State of New York, May 19, 1944 ( Who’s Who in 
America, Vol. 25, p. 44), Dewey wrote (October 22, 194S): 

“As you know, I have always felt that the Jewish people are 
entitled to a homeland in Palestine which would be politically 
and economically stable. . . My position today is the same.” 
On October 24 in a formal statement, Truman rebuked Dewey 
for “injecting foreign affairs” into the campaign and — to change 
the figure of speech — raised the Republican candidate’s “six- 
spades” bid for Jewish votes by a resounding “ten -no- trumps”: 

So that everyone may be familiar with my position, I set 
out here the Democratic platform on Israel: 

“President Truman, by granting immediate recognition to 
Israel, led the world in attending friendship and welcome 
to a people who have long sought and justly deserve free- 
dom and independence. 

“We pledge full recognition to the State of Israel. We 
affirm our pride that the United States, under the leadership 
of President Truman, played a leading role in the adoption 
of the resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, by the United Nations 
General Assembly for the creation of a Jewish state. 

“We approve the claim of the State of Israel to the boun- 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

daries set forth in the United Nations’ resolution of Nov. 29 
and consider that modifications thereof should be made only 
if fully acceptable to tbe State of Israel. 

"We look forward to the admission of the State of Israel 
to the United Nations and its full participation in the inter- 
national community of nations. We pledge appropriate aid 
to the State of Israel in developing its economy and resources. 

"We favor the revision of the arms embargo to accord to 
the State of Israel the right of self-defense” (New York 
Times, October 25, 1948). 

But the President had not said enough. Warmed up, per- 
haps by audience contact, and flushed with the prospect of vic- 
tory, which was enhanced by a decision of the organized leftists 
to swing — after the opinion polls closed — from Wallace to Tru- 
man, he swallowed the “Israel” cause, line, sinker and hook — 
the hook being never thereafter removed. Here from the New 
York Times of Oct. 29, 1948, is Warren Moscow’s story: 

President Truman made his strongest pro-Israel declara- 
tion last night. Speaking at Madison Square Garden to more 
than 16,000 persons brought there under the auspices of the 
Liberal Party, the President ignored the Bernadotte Report 
and pledged himself to see that the new State of Israel be 
“large enough, free enough, and strong enough to make its 
people self-supporting and secure.” 

The President continued: 

What we need now is to help the people of Israel and 
they’ve proved themselves in the best traditions of hardy 
pioneers. They have created a modem and efficient state with 
the highest standards of Western civilization. 

In view of the Zionist record of eliminating the Arab natives 
of Palestine, continuous bombings, and the murder of the United 
Nations mediator, hardly cold in his grave, Mr. Truman owes the 
American people a documented exposition of his conception of 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

“best traditions” and “highest standards of Western civilization/ 

Indeed, our bi-partisan endorsement of Zionist aggression in 
Palestine -in bidding for the electoral vote of New York - is 
one of the most reprehensible actions in world history. 

The Soviet- supplied * Jewish troops which seized Palestine 
had no rights ever before recognized in law or custom except the 
right of triumphant tooth and claw (see The Zionist Illusion, 
by Prof. W. T. Stace of Princeton University, Atlantic Monthly , 

February, 1947). 

In the first place the Khazar Zionists from Soviet Russia were 
not descended from the people of Hebrew religion in Palestine, 
ancient or modern, and thus not being descended from Old Testa- 
ment people ( The Lost Tribes, by Allen H. Godbey, Duke Uni- 
versity Press, Durham, N. C., 1930, pp. 257, 301, and passim ), 
they have no Biblical claim to Palestine. Their claim to the coun- 
try rests solely on their ancestors having adopted a form of the 
religion of a people who ruled there eighteen hundred and more 
years before (Chapter II, above). This claim is thus exactly as 
valid as if the same or some other horde should claim the United 
States in 3350 A.D. on the basis of having adopted the religion 
of the American Indian! For another comparison, the 3,500,000 
Catholics of China (Time, July 2, 1951) have as much right to 
the former Papal states in Italy as these Judaized Khazais have 
to Palestine! ( Bible students are referred to the Apocalypse, The 
Revelation of St. John the Divine, Chapter II, Verse 9. ) 

Moreover, the statistics of both land- owner ship and popula- 
tion stand heavily against Zionist pretensions. At the close of 
the first World War, “there were about 55,000 Jews in Palestine, 
forming eight percent of the population. . . Between 1922 and 
1941, the Jewish population of Palestine increased by approxi- 
mately 380,000, four-fifths of this being due to immigration. 
This made the Jews 31 percent of the total population (East 
and West of Suez, by John S. Badeau, Foreign Policy Associa- 
tion, 1943, p. 46). Even after hordes from Soviet and satellite 
lands had poured in, and when the United Nations was working 
on the Palestine problem, the best available statistics showed 
non- Jews owning more land than Jews in all sixteen of the county- 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

size subdivisions of Palestine and outnumbering the Jews in 
population in fifteen of the sixteen subdivisions (UN Presenta- 
tions 574, and 573, November, 1947). 

The anti-Communist Arab population of the world was under- 
standably terrified by the arrival of Soviet-equipped troops in 
its very center, Palestine, and was bitter at the presence among 
them — despite President Roosevelt's promise to Ibn Saud — of 
Americans with military training. How many U. S. army per- 
sonnel, reserve, retired, or on leave, secretly participated is not 
known. Robert Conway, writing from Jerusalem on January 19, 
1948, said: “More than 2,000 Americans are already serving in 
Haganah, the Jewish Defense Army, highly placed diplomatic 
sources revealed today.” Conway stated further that a “survey 
convinced the Jewish agency that 5,000 Americans are deter- 
mined to come to fight for the Jewish state even if the U. S. 
government imposes loss of citizenship upon such volunteers.” 
The expected number was 50,000 if no law on forfeiting citizen- 
ship was passed by the U. S. Congress (N. Y. News cable in Wash- 
ington Times-Herald, January 20, 1948). 

Among Americans who cast their lot with “Israel” was David 
Marcus, a West Point graduate and World War II colonel. Col. 
Marcus’s service with the “Israeli” army was not revealed to the 
public until he was “killed fighting with Israeli forces near Jeru- 
salem” in June, 1948. At the dedication of a Brooklyn memorial 
to Colonel Marcus a “letter from President Truman . . . extolled 
the heroic roles played by Colonel Marcus in two wars” (New 
York Times, Oct. 11, 1948). At the time of his death, Colonel 
Marcus was “supreme commander of Israeli military forces on 
the Jerusalem front” (AP dispatch, Washington Evening Star , 
June 12, 1948 ) . 

The Arab vote in the United States is negligible — as the 
Zionist vote is not — and after the acceptance of “Israel” by the 
UN the American government recognized as a sovereign state 
the new nation whose soil was fertilized by the blood of many 
people of many nationalities from the lowly Arab peasant to the 
royal Swedish United Nations mediator. “You can’t shoot your 
way into the United Nations,” said Warren Austin, U. S. Dele- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

gate to the UN, speaking of Communist China on January 24, 
1951 (Broadcasts of CBS and NBC). Mr. Austin must have 
been suffering from a lapse of memory, for that is exactly what 
“Israel” didl 

Though the vote of Arabs and other Moslem peoples is neg- 
ligible in the United States, the significance of these Moslem 
peoples is not negligible in the world (see the map entitled 
“The Moslem Block” on p. 78 of Badeau's East of Suez). Nor 
is their influence negligible in the United Nations. The friendly 
attitude of the United States toward Israel’s bloody extension of 
her boundaries and other acts already referred to was effec- 
tively analyzed on the radio (NBC Network, January 8, 1951) 
by the distinguished philosopher and Christian (so stated by 
the introducer, John McVane), Dr. Charles Malik, Lebanese 
Delegate to tire United Nations and Minister of Lebanon to the 
United States. Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon is not to be con- 
fused with Mr. Jacob (Jakov, Yakop) Malik, Soviet Delegate 
with Andrei Y. Vish insky to the 1950 General Assembly of the 
United Nations ( The United Nations — Action for Peace , by 
Marie and Louis Zocca, Rutgers University Press, New Bruns- 
wick, N. J., 1951), To his radio audience Dr. Malik of Lebanon 
spoke, in part, as follows: 

MR. MALIK: The United States has had a great history 
of very friendly relations with the Arab peoples for about 
one hundred years now. That history has been built up by 
faithful missionaries, educators, explorers, and archeologists 
and businessmen for all these decades. Up to the moment 
when the Palestine problem began to be an acute issue, the 
Arab peoples had a genuine and deep sense of love and ad- 
miration for the United States. Then, when the problem of 
Palestine arose, with all that problem involved, by way of 
what we would regard as one-sided partiality on the part of 
the United States with respect to Israel, the Arabs began to 
feel that the United States was not as wonderful or as ad- 
mirable as they had thought it was. The result has been that 
at the present moment there is a real slump in the affection 
and admiration that the Arabs have had towards the United 
States. This slump has affected all the relations between the 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


United States and the Arab world, both diplomatic and non- 
diplomatic. And at the present moment I can say, much to 
my regret, but it is a fact that throughout the Arab world, 
perhaps at no time in history has the reputation of the United 
States suffered as much as it has at the present time. The 
Arabs, on the whole, do not have sufficient confidence that 
the United States, in moments of crises, will not make deci- 
sions that will be prejudicial to their interests. Not until the 
United States can prove in actual historical decision that it 
can withstand certain inordinate pressures that are exercised 
on it from time to time and can really stand up for what one 
might call elementary justice in certain matters, would the 
Arab people really feel that they can go back to their former 
attitude of genuine respect and admiration for the United 

Thus the mess of pottage of vote-garnering in New York and 
other doubtful states with large numbers of Khazar Zionists has 
cost us the loyalty of twelve nations, our former friends, the 
so-called “Arab and Asiatic” block in the UNI 

It appears also that the world’s troubles from little blood- 
bom “Israel” are not over. An official “Israeli” view of Germany 
was expressed in Dallas, Texas, on March 18, 1951, when Abba S. 
Eban, ambassador of the state of “Israel” to the United States and 
“Israel’s” representative at tire United Nations, stated that “Israel 
resents the rehabilitation of Germany” Ambassador Eban vis- 
ited the Texas city in the interest of raising funds for taking 
“200,000 immigrants this year, 600,000 within the next three 
years” (Dallas Morning News, March 13, 1951) to the small 
state of Palestine, or "Israel.” The same day that Ambassador 
Eban was talking in Dallas about “Israel’s” resentment at the 
rehabilitation of Germany, a Reuters dispatch of March 13, 1951 
from Tel Aviv (Washington Times-Herald) stated that “notes 
delivered yesterday [March 12] in Washington, London, and 
Paris and to the Soviet Minister at Tel Aviv urge the occupying 
powers of Germany not to “hand over full powers to any German 
government” without express reservations for the payment of 
reparations to “Israel” in the sum of $1,500,000,000. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

This compensation was said to be for 6,000,000 Jews killed 
by Hitler. This figure has been used repeatedly (as late as Janu- 
ary, 1952 — “Israeli” broadcast heard by the author), but one who 
consults statistics and ponders the known facts of recent history 
cannot do other than wonder how it is arrived at. According 
to Appendix VII, “Statistics on Religious Affiliation,” of The 
Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States (A 
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate, 1950), the number of Jews in the world is 15,713,638. 
The World Almanac, 1949, p. 289, is cited as the source of the 
statistical table reproduced on p. 842 of the government docu- 
ment, The article in the World Almanac is headed “Religious 
Population of the World.” A corresponding item, with the title, 
“Population, Worldwide, by Religious Beliefs” is found in the 
World Almanac for 1940 (p. 129), and in it the world Jewish 
population is given as 15,319,359. If the World Almanac fig- 
ures are correct, the world’s Jewish population did not decrease 
in the war decade, but showed a small increase. 

Assuming, however, that the figures of the U. S. document 
and the World Almanac arc in error, let us make an examination 
of the known facts. In the first place, the number of Jews in 
Germany in 1939 was about 600,000 — by some estimates con- 
siderably fewer — and of these, as shown elsewhere in this 
book, many came to the United States, some went to Palestine, 
and some are still in Germany. As to the Jews in Eastern Euro- 
pean lands temporarily overrun by Hitler’s troops, the great 
majority retreated ahead of the German armies into Soviet Russia. 
Of these, many came later to the U. S., some moved to Pales- 
tine, some unquestionably remained in Soviet Russia and may 
be a part of the Jewish force on the Iranian frontier, and enough 
remained in Eastern Europe or have returned from Soviet Russia 
to form the hard core of the new ruling bureaucracy in satellite 
countries (Chapter II). It is hard to see how all these migra- 
tions and all these power accomplishments can have come about 
with a Jewish population much less than that which existed in 
Eastern Europe before World War H. Tims the known facts on 
Jewish migration and Jewish power in Eastern Europe tend. 

Foreign Policy of the Truman Administration 


like the World Almanac figures accepted by the Senate Judi- 
ciary Committee, to raise a question as to where Hitler got the 
6,000,000 Jews he is said to have killed, This question should 
be settled once and for all before the United States backs any 
“Israeli” claims against Germany. In this connection, it is well 
to recall also that the average German had no more to do with 
Hitler’s policies than the average American had to do with Frank- 
lin Roosevelt’s policies; that 5,000,000 Germans are unaccounted 
for — 4,000,000 civilians (pp. 70, 71, above) and 1,000,000 soldiers 
who never returned from Soviet labor camps (p. 137); and 
that a permanent hostile attitude toward Germany on our part is 
the highest hope of the Communist masters of Russia, 

In spite of its absurdity, however, the “Israeli” claim for repa- 
rations from a not yet created country, w'liosc territory has been 
nothing but an occupied land through the entire life of the state 
of “Israel," may well delay reconciliation in Western Europe; 
and the claim, even though assumed under duress by a West 
German government, would almost certainly be paid — directly 
or indirectly — by the United States. The likelihood of our pav- 
ing will be increased if a powerful propaganda group puts on 
pressure in our advertiser-dominated press. 

As to Ambassador Eban’s 600,000 more immigrants to “Israel”: 
Where will these people go — unless more Arab lands are taken 
and more Christians and Moslems are driven from their homes? 

And of equal significance: Whence will Ambassador Eban’s 
Jewish immigrants to “Israel” come? As stated above, a large 
portion of pre-w'ar Germany’s 600,000 Jews came, with other 
European Jews, to the United States on the return trips of vessels 
which took American soldiers to Europe. Few of them will 
leave the United States, for statistics show that of all immigrants 
to this country, the Jew is least likely to leave. The Jews now 
in West Germany will probably contribute few immigrants to 
“Israel ” for these Jews enjoy a preferred status under U. S, pro- 
tection. It thus appears that Ambassador Eban’s 600,000 reinforce- 
ments to “Israel” — apart from stragglers from the Arab w-orld 
and a possible mere handful from elsewhere — can come only 
from Soviet and satellite lands. If so, they will come on permission 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

of and by arrangement with some Communist dictator (Chapter 
II, above). Can it be that many of the 600,000 will be young 
men with Soviet military training? Can it be that such permis- 
sion will be related to the Soviet’s great concentration of Jews 
in 1951 inside the Soviet borders adjacent to the Soviet- 
Iranian frontier? 

Can it be true further that an army in Palestine, Soviet- 
supplied and Soviet-trained, will be one hom of a giant pincers 
movement (“Keil und Kessel” was Hitler’s term) and that a 
thrust southward into oil-rich Iran will be the other? The astute 
Soviet politicians know that tire use of a substantial body of 
Jewish troops in such an operation might be relied on to prevent 
any United States moves, diplomatic or otherwise, to save the 
Middle East and its oil from the Soviet. In fact, if spurred on by 
a full-scale Zionist propaganda campaign in this country our State 
Department (pp. 232-233), following its precedent in regard to 
"Israel,” might be expected to support the Soviet move. 

To sum it up, it can only be said that there are intelligence 
indications that such a Soviet trap is being prepared. The Soviet 
foreign office, however, lias several plans for a given strategic 
area, and will activate the one that seems, in the light of changing 
events, to promise most in realizing the general objective. Only 
time, then, can tell whether or not the Kremlin will thrust with 
Jewish troops for the oil of Iran and Arabia. 

Thus the Middle East Sames — in Iran, on the "Israeli” fron- 
tier, and along the Suez Canal. 

Could we put out the fires of revolt which are so likely to 
lead to a full scale third World War? A sound answer was given 
by The Freeman (August 13, 1950), which stated that "all we 
need to do to insure the friendship of the Arab and Moslem 
peoples is to revert to our traditional American attitudes toward 
peoples who, like ourselves, love freedom.” This is true because 
the “Moslem faith is founded partly upon the teachings of 
Christ.” Also, "Anti-Arab Policies Are Un-American Policies," 
says William Ernest Hocking in The Christian Century ("Is Israel 
A ‘Natural Ally’?” September 19, 1951). 

Will we work for peace and justice in the Middle East and 

Foreign Folictj of Truman Administration 


thus try to avoid World War III? Under our leftist-infested State 
Department, the chance seems about the same as the chance of 
the Moslem voting population and financial power surpassing 
those of the Zionists during the next few years in the State of 
New YorkI 


The Truman administration’s third great mistake in foreign 
policy is found in its treatment of defeated Germany. In China 
and Palestine, Mr. Truman’s State Department and Executive 
Staff henchmen can be directly charged with sabotaging the 
future of the United States; for despite the surrender at Yalta 
the American position in those areas was still far from hopeless 
when Roosevelt died in April, 1945. With regard to Germany, 
however, things were already about as bad as possible, and the 
Truman administration is to be blamed not for creating but for 
tolerating and continuing a situation dangerous to the future 
security of the United States. 

At Yalta the dying Roosevelt, w r ith Hiss at his elbow and Gen- 
eral Marshall in attendance, had consented to tire brutality of 
letting the Soviet use millions of prisoners of war as slave labor- 
ers — one million of them still slaves or dead before their time. 
We not only thus agreed to the revival of human slavery in a 
form far crueler than ever seen in the Western world; we also 
practiced tire inhumanity of returning to the Soviet for Soviet 
punishment those Western-minded Russian soldiers who sought 
sanctuary in areas held by the troops of the once Christian West! 
The Morgenthau plan for reviving human slavery by its provision 
for “forced labor outside Germany” after the war (William Henry' 
Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade, Henry Regnery Com- 
pany, Chicago, 1950, p. 210) was the basic document for these 
monstrous decisions. It seems that Roosevelt initialed this plan 
at Quebec without fully knowing what he was doing ( Memoirs 
of Cordell Hull, Vol. II) and might have modified some of the 
more cruel provisions if he had lived and regained his strength. 
Instead, he drifted into the twilight, and at Yalta Hiss and 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Marshall were in attendance upon him, while Assistant Secretary 
of State Acheson was busy in Washington. 

After Roosevelt’s death the same officials of sub-cabinet rank 
or high non-cabinet rank carried on their old policies and worked 
sedulously to foment more than the normal amount of post-war 
unrest in Western Germany. Still neglected was the sound stra- 
tegic maxim that a war is fought to bring a defeated nation into 
the victor’s orbit as a friend and ally. Indeed, with a much nar- 
rower world horizon than his predecessor, Mr. Truman was more 
easily put upon by the alien-minded offiicials around him. To all 
intents and purposes, he was soon their captive. 

From the point of view of the future relations of both Ger- 
mans and Jews and of our own national interest, we made a 
grave mistake in using so many Jews in the administration of 
Germany. Since Jews were assumed not to have any “Nazi 
contamination,” the “Jews who remained in Germany after the 
Nazi regime were available for use by military government” 
(Zink: American Military Government in Germany, p. 136). 
Also, many Jews who had come from Germany to this country 
during the war were sent back to Germany as American officials 
of rank and power. Some of these individuals were actually 
given on-the-spot commissions as offiicers in the Army of the 
United States. Unfortunately, not all refugee Jews were of 
admirable character. Some had been in trouble in Germany for 
grave non-political oifenscs and their repatriation in tire dress 
of United States officials was a shock to the German people. 
There arc testimonies of falsifications by Jewish interpreters and 
of acts of vengeance. The extent of such practices is not here 
estimated, but in any case the cmplovment of such large numbers 
of Jews — whether of good report, or bad — was taken by Ger- 
mans as proof of Hitler’s contention (heard by many Americans 
as a shortwave song) that America is a “Jewish land,” and made 
rougher our road toward reconciliation and peace. 

A major indelible blot was thrown on the American shield bv 
the Nuremberg war trials in which, in clear violation of the spirit 
of our own Constitution, we tried people under ex post facto laws 
for actions performed in carrying out the orders of their su- 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

periors. Such a travesty of justice could have no other result 
than teaching the Germans — as the Palestine matter taught the 
Arabs — that our government had no sense of justice. The per- 
sisting bitterness from this foul fiasco is seen in the popular quip 
in Germany to the effect that in the third World War England 
will furnish the navy, France the foot soldiers, America the air- 
planes, and Germany the war-criminals. 

In addition to lacking the solid foundation of legal precedent, 
our “war trials” afforded a classic example of the “law’s delay.” 
Seven German soldiers, ranging in rank from sergeant to general, 
were executed as late as June 7, 1951. Whatever these men and 
those executed before them may or may not have done, the long 
delay had two obvious results — five years of jobs for the U. S. 
bureaucrats involved and a continuing irritation of the German 
people — an irritation desired by Zionists and Communists. 

The Germans had been thoroughly alarmed and aroused 
against Communism and used the phrase "Gegen Welt Bolslie- 
wismus” (“Against World Communism”) on placards and parade 
banners while Franklin Roosevelt was courting it (“We need 
those votes”). Consequently the appointment of John J. McCloy 
as High Commissioner (July 2, 1949) appeared as an affront, 
for this man was Assistant Secretary' of War at the time of the 
implementation of the executive order which abolished rules 
designed to prevent the admission of Communists to the War 
Department; and also, before a Congressional Committee 
appointed to investigate Communism in the War Department, he 
testified that Communism was not a decisive factor in granting or 
withholding an army commission. Not only McCloy’s record 
(Chapter VIII, c) but his manner in dealing with the Germans 
tended to encourage a permanent hostility toward America. Thus, 
as late as 1950, he was still issuing orders to them not merely 
plainly but “bluntly” and “sharply” (Drew Middleton in the New 
York Times, Feb. 7, 1950). 

Volumes could not record all our follies in such matters as 
dismantling German plants for the Soviet Union while spending 
nearly a billion a year to supply food and other essentials to the 
German people, who could have supported themselves by work 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

in the destroyed plants. For details on results from dismantling 
a few chemical plants in the Ruhr, see “On the Record” by Doro- 
thy Thompson, Washington Evening Star , June 14, 1949. The 
crowning failure of our policy, however, came in 1950. This 
is no place for a full discussion or our attitude toward the effort 
of 510,000 Jews — supported, of course, from the outside as shown 
in Chapter IV, above — to ride herd on 62,000,000 Germans 
( 1933, the figures were respectively about 600,000 and 69,000,000 
by 1939) or the ghastly sequels. It appeared as sheer deception, 
however, to give the impression, as Mr. Acheson did, that we 
were doing what we could to secure tire cooperation of Western 
Germany, when Mr. Milton Katz was at the time (his resigna- 
tion was effective August 19, 1951) our overall Ambassador in 
Europe and, under the far from vigorous Marshall, the two 
top assistant secretaries of Defense were the Eastern European 
Jewess, Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, and Mr. Marx Leval Nothing is 
said or implied by the author against Mr. Katz, Mrs. Rosenberg, 
or Mr. Marx Leva, or others such as Mr. Max Lowenthal and Mr. 
Benjamin J. Buttenwieser, who have been prominent figures in 
our recent dealings with Germany, the former as Assistant to 
Commissioner McCloy and the latter as Assistant High Commis- 
sioner of the United States. As far as the author knows, all five of 
these officials are true to their convictions. The sole point here 
stressed is the unsound policy of sending unwelcome people to 
a land whose good wall we are seeking — or perhaps only 
; pretending to seek. 

According to Forster’s A Measure of Freedom (p. 86), there 
is a “steady growth of pro-German sentiment in the super- 
Patriotic press” in the United States. The context suggests that 
Mr. Forster is referring in derision to certain pro-American sheets 
of small circulation, most of which do not carry advertising. These 
English-language papers with their strategically sound viewpoints 
can, however, have no appreciable circulation in Germany, if any 
at all, and Germans are forced to judge America by its actions 
and its personnel. In both, we have moved for the most part 
rather to repel them than to draw them into our orbit as friends. 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


If we really wash friendship and peace with the German 
people, and really want them on our side in case of another 
world-wide war, our choice of General Eisenhower as Com- 
mander-in-Chief in Europe was most unfortunate. He is a tact- 
ful, genial man, but to the Germans he remains — now and in 
history — as the Commander who directed the destruction of 
their cities with civilian casualties running as high as a claimed 
40,000 in a single night, and directed the U. S. retreat from the 
outskirts of Berlin. This retreat was both an affront to our vic- 
torious soldiers and a tragedy for Germany, because of the mil- 
lions of additional people it placed under the Soviet yoke, and 
because of the submarine construction plants, guided missile 
works, and other factories it presented to the Soviet. More- 
over, General Eisenhower was Supreme Commander in Germany 
during the hideous atrocities perpetrated upon the German peo- 
ple by displaced persons after the surrender (Chapter IV, above). 
There is testimony to General Eisenhower’s lack of satisfaction 
with conditions in Germany in 1945, but he made — as far as 
the author knows — no strong gesture such as securing his assign- 
ment to another post. Finally, according to Mr. Henry Morgen- 
thau (New York Post, November 24, 1947), as quoted in Human 
Events and in W. H. Chamberlin’s America’s Second Crusade, 
General Eisenhower said: “The whole German population is a 
synthetic paranoid” and added that tire best cure would be to let 
them stew in their own juice. 

All in all, sending General Eisenhower to persuade the West 
Germans to “let bygones be bygones” (CBS, January 20, 1951), 
even before the signing of a treaty of peace, was very much as if 
President Grant had sent General Sherman to Georgia to placate 
the Georgians five years after the burning of Atlanta and the 
march to the sea — except that the personable Eisenhower had 
the additional initial handicap of Mr. Katz breathing on Iris neck, 
and Mrs. Anna Rosenberg in high place in the Department of 
Defense in Washington! The handicap may w'ell be insurmount- 
able, for many Germans, whether rightly or not, believe Jews 
are responsible for all their woes. Thus, after the Eisenhower 
appointment, parading Germans took to writing on their placards 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

not their old motto “Gegen Welt Bolshewismus” but “Ohne 
mich” (AP dispatch from Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, Febru- 
ary 4, 1951) which may be translated “Leave me out.” 

In this Germany, whose deep war wounds were kept con- 
stantly festering by our policy, our government has stationed 
some six divisions of American troops. Why? In answering the 
question remember that Soviet Russia is next door, while our 
troops, supplies, and reinforcements have to cross the Atlantic! 
Moreover, if the Germans, fighting from and for their own home- 
land, “failed with a magnificent army of 240 combat divisions” 
(cx- President Herbert Hoover, broadcast on “Our National Policies 
in This Crisis,” Dec. 20, 1950) to defeat Soviet Russia, what do 
we expect to accomplish with six divisions? Of course, in World 
War II many of Germany’s divisions were used on her west front 
and America gave the Soviet eleven billion dollars worth of war 
materiel; still by any comparison with the number of German 
divisions used against Stalin, six is a very small number for any 
military purpose envisioning victory. Can it be that the six divi- 
sions have been offered by some State Department schemer as 
World War Ill’s European parallel to the "sitting ducks” at 
Pearl Harbor and the cockle shells in Philippine waters? (See 
Chapter VII, d, below and Design for War, by Frederick R. San- 
born, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1951). According 
to the military historian and critic. Major Hoffman Nickerson, 
our leaders have some “undisclosed purpose of their own, or if 
they foresee war they intend that war to begin either with a 
disaster or a helter-skelter retreat” ( The Freeman, July 2, 1951). 
In any case the Soviet Union — whether from adverse internal 
conditions, restive satellites, fear of our atomic bomb stockpile, 
confidence in the achievement of its objectives through diplomacy 
and infiltration, or other reasons — has not struck violently at our 
first bait of six divisions. But, under our provocation the Soviet 
has quietly got busy. 

For five years after the close of World War II, we maintained 
in Germany two divisions and the Soviet leaders made little or 
no attempt to prepare the East German transportation network 
for possible war traffic (U. S. News and World Report, January 


Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

24. 1951) . Rising, however, to the challenge of our four additional 
divisions (1951), the Soviet took positive action. Here is the story 
(AP dispatch from Berlin in Washington Times-Herald, April 

30.1951) : 

Russian engineers have started rebuilding the strategic 
rail and road system from Germany’s Elbe River, East Ger- 
man sources disclosed today. 

The main rail lines linking East Germany and Poland with 
Russia arc being double-tracked, the sources said. 

The engineers are rebuilding Germany’s highway and 
bridge network to support tanks and other heavy artillery 

The Soviet got busy not only in transportation but in per- 
sonnel and equipment. According to Drew Middleton ( New York 
Times, August 17, 1951), “All twenty-six divisions of the Soviet 
group of armies in Eastern Germany are being brought to full 
strength for the first time since 1946.” Also, a “stream of newly 
produced tanks, guns, tmeks, and light weapons is flowing to 
divisional and army bases.” There were reports also of the 
strengthening of satellite armies. 

These strategic moves followed our blatantly announced 
plans to increase our forces in Germany. Moreover, according to 
Woodrow Wyatt, British Undersecretary for War, the Soviet 
Union had “under arms” in the summer of 1951 “215 divisions 
and more than 4,000,000 men” (AP dispatch in New York Times, 
July 16, 1951). Can it be possible that our State Department is 
seeking ground conflict with this vast force not only on their 
frontier but on the particular frontier which is closest to their 
factories and to their most productive farm lands? 

In summary, the situation of our troops in Germany is part of 
a complex world picture which is being changed daily by new 
world situations such as our long delayed accord with Spain and 
a relaxing of the terms of our treaty with Italy. There are several 
unsolved factors. One of them is our dependence — at least in 
large part— on the French transportation network which is in 
daily jeopardy of paralysis by the Communists, who are 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

numerically the strongest political party in France. Another is the 
nature of the peace treaty which will some day be ratified by the 
government of West Germany and the Senate of the United 
States — and thereafter die manner of implementing that treaty. 

As wc leave the subject, it can only be said that the situation 
of our troops in Germany is precarious and diat the question of 
our relations with Germany demands the thought of the ablest 
and most patriotic people in America — a type not overly promi- 
nent in the higher echelons of our Department of State in recent 
years. ^ 


Having by three colossal “mistakes’' set the stage for possible 
disaster in the Far East, in the Middle East, and in Germany, we 
awaited the enemy’s blow which could be expected to topple us 
to defeat. It came in the Far East 

As at Pearl Harbor, the attack came on a Sunday morning — 
June 25, 1950. On that day North Korean Communist troops 
crossed the 38th parallel from the Soviet Zone to the recently 
abandoned U. S. Zone in Korea and moved rapidly to the South. 
Our government knew from several sources about these Commu- 
nist troops before we moved our troops out on January 1, 
1949, leaving the South Koreans to their fate. For instance, in 
March, 1947, Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, U. S. Com- 
mander in Korea, stated “that Chinese Communist troops were 
participating in the training of a Korean army of 500,000 in 
Russian-held North Korea’’ ( The China Story, p. 51). 

Despite our knowledge of the armed might of the forces in 
North Korea; despite our vaunted failure to arm our former 
wards, the South Koreans; despite our “hands off” statements 
placing Formosa and Korea outside our defense perimeter and 
generally giving Communists the green light in the Far East; and 
despite President Truman’s statement as late as May 4, 1950, 
that there would be “no shooting war,” we threw United States 
troops from Japan into that unhappy pemhsula — without the 
authority of Congress — to meet the Communist invasion. 



Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

Our troops from Japan had been trained for police duty 
rather than as combat units and were “without the proper weap- 
ons” (P. L. Franklin in National Republic, January, 1951). This 
deplorable fact was confirmed officially by former Defense Sec- 
retary, Louis Johnson, who testified that our troops in Korea 
"were not equipped with the things that you would need if you 
were to fight a hostile enemy. They were staffed and equipped 
for occupation, not for war or an offensive” (testimony before 
combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of 
the Senate, June, 1951, as quoted by 17. S. News and World 
Report, June 22, 1951, pp. 21-22), Our administration had seen 
to it also that those troops which became our South Korean allies 
were also virtually unarmed, for the Defense Department “had 
no establishment for Korea. It was under the State Department 
at that time” (Secretary Johnson’s testimony). 

Under such circumstances, can any objective thinker avoid 
the conclusion that the man ip ula tors of United States policy con- 
fidently anticipated the defeat and destruction of our forces , 
which Secretary Acheson advised President Truman to commit 
to Korea in June, 1950? 

But the leftist manipulators of the State Department — 
whether in that department or on the outside — were soon con- 
fronted by a miracle they had not foreseen. The halting of the 
North Korean Communists by a handful of men under such 
handicaps was one of the remarkable and heroic pages in history 
— credit for which must be shared by our brave front-line fight- 
ing men; tlieir field commanders including Major General William 
F. Dean, who was captured by the enemy, and Lieutenant Gen- 
eral Walton H. Walker, who died in Korea; and their Com- 
mander-in-Chief, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. 

The free world applauded what seemed to be a sudden rever- 
sal of our long policy of surrender to Soviet force in the Far East, 
and the United Nations gave its endorsement to our administra- 
tion’s venture in Korea. But the same free world was stunned 
when it realized the significance of our President’s order to the 
U. S. Seventh Fleet to take battle station between Formosa and 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

the Chinese mainland and stop Chiang from harassing the main- 
land Communists. Prior to the Communist aggression in Korea, 
Chiang was dropping ammunition from airplanes to unsubdued 
Nationalist troops (so-called ‘'guerrillas”), whose number by 
average estimates of competent authorities was placed at approxi- 
mately 1,250,000; was bombing Communist concentrations; was 
making hit-and-run raids on Communist-held ports, and was 
intercepting supplies which were being sent from Britain and'the 
United States to the Chinese Communists. Repeated statements 
by Britain and America that such shipments were of no use to . 
the Communist armies were demolished completely by Mr. Wins- 
ton Churchill, who revealed on the floor of the House of Com- 
mons (May 7, 1951, UP dispatch) that the material sent to the 
Chinese Communists included 2,500 tons of Malayan rub£>er 
per month! 

Chiang’s forces — despite frequent belittlings in certain news- 
papers and by certain radio commentators — were and are by no 
means negligible. His failure on the mainland had resulted 
directly from our withholding of ammunition and other supplies 
but, as shown above, he successfully covered his retreat to For- 
mosa. According to Major General Claire Chennault of the famed 
“Flying Tigers" and Senator Knowland of California — a World 
War II Major and member of the Senate Armed Services Com- 
mittee — who investigated independently, Chiang late in 1950 
had about 500,000 trained troops on Formosa and considerable 
materiel. The number was placed at 600,000 by General Mac- 
Arthur in his historic address to the two houses of the Congress 
on April 19, 1951. 

Our action against Chiang had one effect, so obvious as to / 
seem planned. By our order to the Seventh Fleet, the Commu-/ 
nist armies which Chiang was pinning down were free to sup- 
port the Chinese Communist forces assembled on the Korean 
border to watch our operations. Despite our State Department's \ 
"assumption” that the Chinese Communists would not fight, those 
armies seized the moment of their reinforcement from the South, 
which coincided with the extreme lengthening of our supply lines, 
and entered the war in November, 1950, thirteen days after the 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


election of a pro-Acheson Democratic congress. In his appearance 
before the combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations 
Committees of the Senate in May, 1951, General MacArthur 
testified that two Chinese Communist armies which had been 
watching Chiang had been identified among our enemies in 
Korea. Thus our policy in the Strait of Formosa was instrumental 
in precipitating the Chinese Communist attack upon us when vic- 
tory in Korea was in our grasp. 

Here then, in summary, was the situation when the Chinese 
Communists crossed the Yalu River in November, 1950:— We 
had virtually supplied them with the sinews of war by prevent - 
mg Chiang’s interference with their import of strategic materials. 
We had released at least two of their armies for an attack on us 
by stopping Chiangs attacks on them. We not only, for "politi- 
cal” reasons, had refused Chiang’s offer of 33,000 of his best 
troops when the war broke out (“How Asia’s Policy Was Shaped: 
Civilians in the State Department Are Dictating Military Strategy 
of Nation, Johnson confirms,” by Constantine Brown, The Eve- 
ning Star, Washington, June 16, 1951), but even in the grave crisis 
in November, 1950, we turned down General MacArthur’s plea 
that he be allowed to “accept 60,000 of Chiang’s troops.” 

These truths, which cannot be questioned by anyone, con- 
stitute a second barrage of evidence that the shapers of our 
policy sought defeat rather than victory. Had General Mac- 
Arthur been permitted to use them, Chiang’s loyal Chinese 
troops would not only have fought Communists, but, being of 
the same race and speaking the same or a related language, 
“would no doubt have been able to induce many surrenders 
among the Red Chinese forces” (see "Uncle Sam, Executioner,” 
The Freeman, June 18, 1951). If we had accepted the services 
of Chiang’s troops, we would have also secured the great diplo- 
matic advantage of rendering absurd, and probably preventing, 
the outcry in India, and possibly other Asiatic countries, that our 
operation in Korea was a new phase of Western imperialism. 

But this was not all that our State Department and Presiden- 
tial coterie did to prevent the victory of our troops in Korea. 
Despite the fact that the United Nations on October 7, 1950, 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

voted by a big majority for crossing the 38th parallel to free 
North Korea, up to the Yalu River, we denied MacArthur’s army 
the right to use air reconnaissance for acquiring intelligence indi- 
cations of the Chinese Communist troops and facilities across 
that river. This amazing denial of a commander’s elementary 
right to take a reasonable precaution in saving soldiers’ lives at 
last made clear to many Americans that we were fighting for some 
other objective besides victory. Coming, as it did, as one of a 
series of pro-Communist moves, this blindfolding of General 
MacArthur prompted Representative Joe Martin of Massachu- 
setts, former Speaker of the House, to ask pointedly in his Lin- 
coln Day Speech in New York (February 12, 1951): “What are ^ 
vve in Korea for — to win or to lose?” 

The denial of the right to reconnoiter and to bomb troop 
concentrations and facilities, after whole Chinese armies were 
committed against us, was very close to treason under the Consti- 
tutional prohibition (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 1) of giving 
“aid and comfort” to an enemy. In fact, if a refusal to let our ' 
troops take in defense of their lives measures always recognized 
in warfare as not only permissible but obligator)' does not consti- 
tute "aid and comfort” to the enemy, it is hard to conceive any 
action which might be so construed. The pretense that by abstain- 
ing from reconnaissance and from the bombing of enemy supply 
lines we kept the Soviet out of the war makes sense only to the 
very ignorant or to those in whose eyes our State Department 
can do no wrong. A country such as the Soviet Union will make 
war when the available materiel is adequate, when its troops have 
been trained and concentrated for the proposed campaign, and 
when the government decides that conditions at home and < 
abroad are favorable — not when some of its many catspaws / 
are bombed on one side or the other of an Asiatic river. 

The only logical conclusion, therefore — and a conclusion 
arrived at by a whole succession of proofs — is that for some rea- \ 
son certain people with influence in high places wanted heavier 
American casualties in Korea, the final defeat of our forces there, 
and the elimination of MacArthur from the American scene. 

But once again, MacArthur did not fail. Once again, under 



Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 

terrible odds, MacArthur first evaded and then stopped the enemy 
— an enemy sent against him by the Far Eastern policy of Tru- 
man and Aclieson. 

According to General Bonner Fellers (UP, Baltimore, Md., 
May 11, 1952, New York Times), the Chinese field commanders 
in Korea in the Spring of 1951 were desperate and “could not 
hold out much longer.” Apparently not wanting victory, the 
Truman-Acheson-Marshall clique acted accordingly. On April 
10, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur was dismissed from his 
Far Eastern command. With MacArthur’s successor, our top 
echelon executives took no chances. Before a Florida audience, 
the veteran radio commentator, H. V. Kaltenbom, spoke as fol- 
lows: “General Ridgway told me in answer to my query as 
to why we can’t win that he was under orders not to win 
(Article by Emilie Keyes, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 30, 1952). 

The frantic dismissal of a great general who was also a popular 
and successful ruler of an occupied country' caused a furor all 
over America. The General was invited to address the two houses 
of the Congress in joint session and did so on April 19, 1951. 
During the same hour, the President conferred, as he said later, 
with Dean Acheson, without turning on radio or television — 
and Mrs. Truman was at a horse race. 

General MacArthur’s speech will forever be a classic in mili- 
tary annals and among American State papers. It was followed 
shortly by an investigation of the circumstances leading to his dis- 
missal -an investigation by the combined Armed Services and 
Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate. 

The millions of words of testimony before the combined 
Senate committees resulted in no action. The volume of ques- 
tions and answers was so vast that few people or none could 
follow all of it, but certain good resulted — even over and above 
the awakening of the more alert Americans to the dangers of 
entrusting vital decisions to men with the mental processes of 
the secretaries of State and Defense. After the MacArthur inves- 
tigation the American people (i) knew more about our casualties 
in Korea; (ii) learned of the Defense Department’s acceptance 
of the idea of a bloody stalemate, and (iii) got a shocking docu- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


mentary proof of the ineptitude or virtual treason of our foreign 
policy. These three topics will be developed in the order here 

(i) By May 24, 1951 — eleven months after the Korean Com- 
munist troops crossed the 38th parallel — our own publicly 
admitted battle casualties had reached the recorded total of 
69,276, a figure much larger than that for our casualties during the 
whole first full year (1942) of World War II (17. S. News and 
World Report, April 17, 1951, p. 14). On the subject of our 
casualties, Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, senior Republican 
member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, revealed 
the further significant fact that as of April, 1951, Americans had 
suffered * 94.6 per cent of all casualties among United Nations 
forces aiding South Korea” (UP dispatch from Chicago, April 11, 
1951). Parenthetically, the second United Nations member in the 
number of casualties in Korea was our Moslem co-belligcrent, 
the Republic of Turkey. The casualties of South Korea were not 
considered in this connection since that unhappy land was not a' 
UN member. 

Moreover, on May 24, 1951, General Bradley revealed in his 
testimony before the combined Armed Services and Foreign Rela- 
tions Committees of the Senate that non-battle casualties, include 
ing the loss of frozen legs and arms, which had not been included 
in lists issued to the public, totaled an additional 72,679 casual- 
ties, among them 612 dead. 

With such terrible casualties admitted and published, Presi- 
dent Truman’s glib talk of "avoiding war” by a “police action” in 
Korea appeared to more and more people to be nothing but 
quibbling with a heartless disregard of our dead and wounded/ 
men and their sorrowing relatives. Our battle casualties passed 
100,000 by mid-November, 1951. 

(ii) Before his dismissal, General MacArthur stressed his con- 
viction that the only purpose of war is victory. In direct contrast, \ 
Secretary of Defense Marshall admitted to the Congress, in seek- 
ing more drastic draft legislation, that there was no foreseen end 
to our losses in Korea — a statement undoubtedly coordinated 
with the State Department. This acceptance of a bloody stale- 

mate with no foreseeable end horrified MacArthur, who is a 
Christian as well as a strategist, and prompted a protest which 
was a probable factor in Iris dismissal. The Marshall "strategy in 
Korea” was summed up succinctly by U. S. News and World 
Report ( April 20, 1951 ) as a plan “to bleed the Chinese into a 
mood to talk peace.” This interpretation was confirmed by Gen- 
eral Marshall, who was still Secretary of Defense, in testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Com- 
mittees on May 7, 1951. 

What an appalling prospect for America — this fighting a war 
our leaders do not want us to win, for when every possible drop 
of our blood has been shed on Korean soil the dent in China’s 
475,000,000 people (population figures given by Chinese Com- 
munist mission to the UN) will not be noticeable. This is true 
because on a blood-letting basis we cannot kill them as fast as 
their birth rate will replace them. Moreover, the death of Chinese 
Communist soldiers will cause no significant ill-effects on Chinese 
morale, for the Chinese Communist authorities publish neither 
the names of the dead nor any statistics on their losses. 

(iii) Terrible for its full and final exposure of our govern- 
ment’s wanton waste of young American lives and of our State 
Department's destruction of our world position, but fortunate for 
its complete revelation of treason or the equivalent in high places 
in our government, a second installment of the Wedemeyer 
Report (a, above) was given to the public on May 1, 1951, 
possibly because of the knowledge that the MacArthur furor 
would turn the daylight on it anyhow. The full text of the Wede- 
meyer' Report on Korea, as issued, was published in the New 
York Times for May 2, 1951. The report was condensed in an 
editorial (Washington Daily News, April 10, 1951) which Con- 
gressman Walter H. Judd of Minnesota included in the Congres- 
sional Record (May 2, 1951, pp. A2558-2559). Here is a portion 
of the Daily News editorial with a significant passage from the 
Wedemeyer Report: 

The [Wedemeyer] reports, which presented plans to save 
China and Manchuria from Communism, were suppressed 
until July, 1949. The report on Korea was denied to the pub- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

lie until yesterday. It contained this warning: 

“The Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean peoples 
(Communist) army of approximately 125,000 is vastly super- 
ior to the United States -organized constabulary of 16,000 
Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. . . The with- 
drawal of American military forces from Korea would . . . 
result in the occupation of South Korea either by Soviet 
troops, or, as seems more likely, by the Korean military units 
trained under Soviet auspices.’* Those units. General Wedo- 
moyer said, maintained active liaison “with the Chinese Com- 
munists in Manchuria." 

This was written nearly 4 years ago. 

To meet tins threat, General Wedemeyer recommended 
a native force in South Korea, “sufficient in strength to cope 
with the threat from the North,” to prevent the “forcible 
establishment of a Communist government.” 

Since 70 per cent of the Korean population was in the 
American occupation zone south of the thirty-eighth parallel, 
the manpower advantage was in our favor, if we had used it. 

But the sound Wedemeyer proposal was ignored, and, when 
the predicted invasion began, American troops had to be 
rushed to the scene because sufficient South Korean troops 
were not available. 

The State Department was responsible for this decision. 

Thus a long-suppressed document, full of warning and of 
fulfilled prophecy, joined the spilled blood of our soldiers in cast- 
ing the shadow of treason upon our State Department. “U.N. 
forces, under present restraints, will not be able to win” said | 
U. S. News and World Report, on June 8, 1951, In fact, by their 1 
government's plan they were not allowed to winl Here’s how . 

The Freeman (June 4, 1951) summed up our Korean war: / 

So whenever the Chinese Communists feel that they are 
getting the worse of it, they may simply withdraw, rest, re- 
group, rearm — and make another attack at any time most \ 
advantageous to themselves. They have the guarantee of 
Messrs. Truman, Achesoo, and Marshall that they will be 
allowed to do all this peacefully and at their leisure; that we 
will never pursue them into their own territory, never bomb 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


their concentrations or military installations, and never peep 

too curiously with our air reconnaissance to see what they 

are up to. 

The truce conference between the Communists and the repre- 
sentatives of the American Far East commander, General 
Matthew B. Ridgway, was protracted throughout the summer 
and autumn of 1951 and into April, 1952, when General Mark 
Clark of Rapido River notoriety succeeded (April 28) to the 
military command once held by Douglas MacArthurl Whatever 
its outcome may be under General Clark, this conference has 
so far had one obvious advantage for the Communists; it has 
given them time in which to build up their resources in materiel, 
particularly in tanks and jet planes, and time to bring up more 
troops— an opportunity capable of turning the scales against 
us in Korea, since a corresponding heavy reinforcement of our 
troops was forbidden under our new policy of sending four 
divisions to Germany! The potential disaster inherent in our 
long executive dawdling, while our troops under the pliant 
Ridgway saw their air superiority fade away, should be investi- 
gated by Congress. In letters to public officials and to the press 
and in resolutions passed in public meetings, the American 
people should demand such an investigation. Congress should 
investigate the amount of pre-combat training given our fliers; 
the question of defective planes; and crashes in the Strategic 
Air Command under General LeMay and others, as well as the 
decline under President Truman of our relative air strength in 
Korea and the world. For amazing pertinent facts, see “Emerg- 
ency in the Air,” by General Bonner Fellers, in Human Events, 
January 23, 1952. 

A peace treaty with Japan (for text, see New York Times, 
July 13, 1951) was proclaimed at San Francisco on September 8, 
1951, after the dismissal of General MacArthur. This treaty rati- 
fied the crimes of Yalta under which, in defiance of the Atlantic 
Charter and of every principle of self-interest and humanity, we 
handed to the Soviet the Kurile Islands and placed Japan peri- 
lously in the perimeter of Soviet power. Moreover, the preamble 
to the treaty provides that Japan shall “strive to realize the 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

objectives of the universal declaration of human rights.” Since 
this declaration is intended to supersede the U. S. Constitution, 
the Senate’s ratification of the treaty (Spring of 1952) is thought 
by many astute political observers to foreshadow UN meddling 
within our boundaries (see Human Events , December 26, 1951) 
and other violations of our sovereignty. On April 28, 1952, Japan, 
amid a clamor of Soviet denunciation, became a nation again. 
At best, the new Japan, sorely overpopulated and underprovided 
with food and other resources cannot for many years be other 
than a source of grave concern to our country. This is our legacy, 
from Hiss, Acheson, and Dullest 

And what of the South Koreans, a people we are ostensibly 
helping? Their land is a bloody shambles and three million of 
them are dead. It was thus that we joined Britain in “helping” 
Poland in World War II. The best comment is a haunting phrase 
of the Roman historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, “Ubi solitu- 
dinem faciunt, pacem appellant” (“Where they create a waste- 
land, they call it peace”). Thus with no visible outcome but a 
continuing bloody stalemate, and continuing tragedy for the 
South Koreans, more and more clean young Americans are buried 
under white crosses in Korea. 

Perhaps the best summary of our position in Korea was given 
by Erie Cocke, Jr., National Commander of the American Legion, 
after a tour of tire battle lines in Korea (“Who Is Letting Our 
GI’s Down?” American Legion Magazine, May, 1951): 

Our present-day Benedict Arnolds may glibly argue that 
it is necessary to keep Chiang and his armies blockaded on 
Formosa, but these arguments make no sense to our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines who have to do the fighting and j 
dying. They see in Chiang’s vast armies a way of saving some 
of the 250 lives that are being needlessly sacrificed each week 
because certain furtive people expound that Chiang isn’t the 
right sort of person, and therefore we cannot accept his aid, v 
Our fighting men are not impressed by these false prophets 
because they haven’t forgotten that these same people not 
long ago were lauding Mao’s murdering hordes as "agrarian 

Foreign Policy of Truman Administration 


For the life of them — and "life” is meant in a very literal 
sense — they can’t understand why our State Department and 
the United Nations make it necessary for them to be slaugh- 
tered by red armies which swarm down on them from terri- 
tory which our own heads of Government make sacrosanct. . . 

Agents of the Kremlin, sitting in the councils of the 
United Nations, in Washington and elsewhere, must laugh 
up their sleeves at our utter idiocy. But you may be sure that 
our Cl’s are not amused. They see the picture as clearly as 
the Soviet agents do, but, unlike our stateside leaders, they 
see the results of this criminal skulduggery in the blood they 
shed and in the mangled corpses of their buddies. 

What they cannot understand, though, is the strange 
apathy of the people back home. As they listen to radio 
reports of what is happening thousands of miles to the east 
of them, they are puzzled. Isn’t the American public aware of 
what is going on? Don’t they realize that their sons and hus- 
bands and sweethearts are fighting a ruthless enemy who has 
them at a terrible disadvantage, thanks to stupid or traitor- 
ous advisors and inept diplomacy? 

This brings us to Delegate Warren Austin’s statement (NBC, 
January 20, 1951) that the UN votes with us "usually 53 to 5” 
but runs out on us when the question rises of substantial help in 
Korea. The reader is now ready for and has probably arrived at 
the truth. The free nations vote with us because we are obviously 
preferable to the Soviet Union as a friend or ally, for the Soviet 
Union absorbs and destroys its allies. 

But according to the Lebanon delegate to the United Nations, 
quoted above, the nations of Asia are withholding their full 
support of U. S. Policy because they are pained and bewildered 
by it. They do not understand a foreign policy which (a) 
applauds the landing of Russian-trained troops on a Palestine 
beachhead and amiably tolerates the bloody “liquidation” of 
natives and UN officials and (b) goes to war because one faction 
of Koreans is fighting another faction of Koreans in Korea. 

The failure to see any sense in United States policy is not con- 
fined to the nations of Asia. In France, our oldest friend among 

Chapter VII 


Since the suspension of the Age of Honor in 1933, those few 
patriotic Americans who as linguists, astute historians, or intelli- 
gence officers have been privileged to look behind our iron cur- 
tain of censorship have had the shock of many times seeing the 
selfish wishes of a gang or a minority placed ahead of the welfare 
of the United States. The attempts of those writers and speakers 
who have tried to share the truth with their fellow citizens have, 
however, been largely in vain. Publishers and periodicals charac- 
teristically refuse to print books and articles that present vital 
whole truths. Patriotic truth-tellers who somehow achieve print 
are subject to calumny. "I have been warned by many” said 
General MacArthur in his speech to the Massachusetts Legisla- 
ture in Boston (July 25, 1951), “that an outspoken course, even if 
it be solely of truth, will bring down upon my head ruthless 
retaliation — that efforts will be made to destroy public faith in 
the integrity of my views — not by force of just argument but by 
the application of the false methods of propaganda.” Those who 
have occasion to read leftist magazines and newspapers know the 
accuracy of the warnings received by General MacArthur. 

Why is the average American deceived by such propaganda? 
He has been taught, in the various and devious ways of censor- 
ship, to see no evil except in his own kind, for on radio and in the 
motion picture the villain is by regular routine a man of native 
stock. Ashamed and bewildered, then, the poor American citizen 
takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own 
people and against the truth — and thereby, against the traditions 
of Western Christian civilization, which are, or were, the tradi- 
tions of the United States. It must not be forgotten for a moment, 
however, that it was the Saviour himself who said, “Ye shall know 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

the truth and the truth shall make you free.” The average citizen 
of native stock needs nothing so much as to experience the purify- 
ing joy of realizing, of knowing, that he is not the villain in 
America. When the slackening of censorship allows him to enjoy 
the restored freedom of seeing himself as a worthy man — which 
he is — he will learn, also, something about the forces which have 
deceived him in the last forty or fifty years. 

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts stated in 
Chapter VI is that our foreign policy has had no steadfast prin- 
cipal aims apart from pleasing — as in its Palestine and German 
deals — the Leftists, largely of Eastern European origin, who con- 
trol the National Democratic Party. Can this be true? If a war 
should seem necessary to please certain Democrats, to establish 
controls, and to give the party an indefinite tenure in office, would 
our leaders go that far? Despite the pervasive influence of censor- 
ship, many Americans think so. A member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Congressman Lawrence H. Smith of Wiscon- 
sin, charged in 1951 that President Truman, Secretary Acheson, 
and General Marshall — at that time Secretary of Defense — were 
“conjuring up another war.” In an article in National Republic 
(May, 1951) Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee gave 
the history of the Democratic Party as the “war party.” This 
haunting terrible question is expressed as follows by E. B. Galla- 
her in the Clover Business Letter (Clover Mfg. Co., Norwalk, 
Conn.) for August, 1951: / 

As we all should know by this time, when the New Deal 
was about to crack up in 1941, Roosevelt, to save his hide, 
deliberately got us into World War 11 in order to give us 
something else to think about The propaganda at that time, 
due to the global nature of the war, was “don’t swap horses 
when crossing a stream.” On this fake propaganda he suc- 
ceeded in getting himself elected once again. 

Now I wonder if history is not repeating itself, this time 
in a slighdy different form. 

Could it be possible that Truman, seeing the handwriting 
on the wall for his "Fair Deal” . . . deliberately started the 
Korean war in order to insure himself of the necessary power 


Does the National Democratic Party Want War? 

to become a dictator? If he could do this, the 1952 elections 

could become a farce, and his election would become assured. 

Let us then objectively examine the question “Does the Na- 
tional Democratic Party Want War?” Let it be noted explicitly 
at the outset that the question refers to the controllers of the 
National Democratic Party and not to the millions of individual 
Democrats, Northern and Southern — including many Senators, 
Congressmen, and other officials — whose basic patriotism can- 
not and should not be challenged. Their wrong judging is based 
on an ignorance which is the product of censorship (Chapter V) 
and is not allied to willful treason. 

We shall examine in order (a) the testimony of mathematics; 
(b) the temptation of the bureaucracy-builder; and (c) the poli- 
tician’s fear of dwindling electoral majorities. The chapter is con- 
cluded by special attention to two additional topics (d) and (e) 
closely related to the question of safeguarding the Democratic 
party’s tenure by war. 


In the first half of this century, the United States had five 
Republican presidents with no wars and three Democratic presi- 
dents with three wars. Such a succession of eight coincidences 
under the laws of mathematics would happen once in 256 times. 
Even if against such odds this fact could be considered a 
coincidence, the Democrats are still condemned by chronology. 
They have no alibi of inheriting these wars, which broke out 
respectively in the fifth year of Woodrow Wilson, in the ninth 
year of Franklin Roosevelt, and in the fifth year of Mr. Truman. 
In each case there was plenty of time to head off a war by 
policy or preparedness, or both. Mathematics thus clearly suggests 
that the behind-the-scenes leaders of the Democratic Party have 
a strong predilection for solving their problems and fulfilling their 
“obligations” by war. 

( b ) 

A war inevitably leads to a rapid increase in the number of 
controls. The first result of controls is the enlargement of the 
bureaucracy. “Defense emergency gives the Democrats a chance 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

to build up for 1952. There are plenty of jobs for good party 
regulars” ( U . S. News and World Report , February 9, 1931). But 
just as an innocent-looking egg may hatch a serpent, controls may 
produce a dictator, and once a dictator is in power no one (as 
shown in the case of Hitler) can chart his mad course. Never- 
theless, these controls and this centralization of bureaucratic 
power urged by Mr. Truman as a “Fair Deal” program are so 
dear to many socialistically inclined "Democrats,” Eastern Euro- 
peans and others, that they may be willing to pay for them in 
young men’s blood. This sacrifice of blood for what you want is 
nothing startling. In tire Revolutionary War, for instance, our 
forefathers sacrificed blood for national independence, and we 
need not be surprised that others are willing to make the same 
sacrifice for what they want — namely a socialist bureaucracy. 
The blood sacrifice, moreover, will not be made by those young 
male immigrants who are arriving from Eastern Europe (see c 
below) as students or visitors or as undetected illegal entrants. 
Many students and visitors have in the past found a way to 
remain. Young immigrants in these categories who manage to 
remain and the illegal entrants are likely to have passed the age 
of twenty-five and probable exemption from the military draft 
before cognizance is taken of their situation. Newcomer aliens all 
too frequently sh'p into jobs that might have been held by those 
who died in Korcal / 

Controls are usually introduced somewhat gradually and with 
an accompaniment of propaganda designed to deceive or lull the 
people. A return from absence gives an objective outlook, and it 
is thus not surprising that on touring America, after his years in , 
the Far East, General Douglas MacArthur saw more clearly than 
most people who remained in America the long strides we had 
made toward collectivism. In his speech at Cleveland (AP dis- 
patch in Richmond Times-Dispatch, September 7, 1951) he testi- 
fied that he had noted in this country “our steady drift toward 
totalitarian rule with its suppression of those personal liberties 
which have formed the foundation stones to our political, eco- 
nomic and social advance to national greatness.” 

It is significant that another American who stands at the 

Does the National Democratic Party Want War? 


utmost top of his profession arrived by a different road at a con- 
clusion identical with that of General MacArthur. In a speech 
entitled “The Camel’s Nose Is Under the Tent,” before the Dallas 
Chapter of the Society for the Advancement of Management on 
October 10, 1951, Mr. Charles Erwin Wilson, President of Gen- 
eral Motors — the largest single maker of armament in World 
War II — gave Americans a much-needed warning: 'The emer- 
gency of the Korean war and the defense program, however, is 
being used to justify more and more government restrictions and 
controls. It is being used to justify more and more state planning, 
It is being used to justify more and more policies that are incon- 
sistent with the fundamentals of a free society” (Information 
Rack Service, General Motors, General Motors Bldg., Detroit, 
Michigan. ) 

The subject of bureaucratic controls cannot be dropped with- 
out the testimony of an able and patriotic American, Alfred E. 
Smith of New York. At the first annual banquet of tire American 
Liberty League (New York Times, January 26, 1936) Governor 
Smith said: 

Just get the platform of the Democratic party and get the 
platform of the Socialist party and lay them down on your 
dining-room table, side by side, and get a heavy' lead pencil 
and scratch out the word ‘Democratic’ and scratch out the 
word ‘Socialist,’ and let the two platforms lay there, and then 
study the record of the present administration up to date. 

After you have done that, make your mind up to pick 
up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and 
you will have your hand on the Socialist platform. , . It is not 
the first time in recorded history that a group of men have 
stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil. 

After protesting the New Deal’s “arraignment of class against 
class,” and its draining the “resources of our people in a common 
pool and redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by 
the whims of a bureaucratic autocracy',” Governor Smith con- 
demned the changing of the Democratic Party into a Socialist 
Party. Since this was said during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, 
Governor Smith is seen to have been not only a wise interpreter 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

of the political scene, but a prophet whose vigorous friendly 
warning was unheeded by the American people. 

In summary, let it be emphasized again that wars bring con- 
trols and that some people in high places are so fond of controls 
that a war may appear a desirable means for establishing them. 


Finally, there is the Democratic controller-politician’s worry 
about the whittling down of his party from a majority to a 
minority status in the national elections of 1948 and 1950. In each 
of these elections the Democratic failure to win a clear majority 
was slight — but significant. In 1948, Truman received less than a 
majority of the popular vote cast (24,045,052 out of a total of 
48,489,217), being elected by a suitable distribution of the elec- 
toral vote, of which Henry Wallace the fourth man (Strom Thur- 
mond was third) received none, though his electors polled more 
than a million popular votes ( World Almanac, 1949, p. 91). In 
1950 tire Democrats elected a majority of members of the House 
of Representatives, but the total vote of all Democratic candi- 
dates lacked .08 per cent of being as large as the total vote of all 
the Republicans. Again the Democratic Party remained in power 
by the mere distribution of votes. 

Here is where the grisly facts of Eastern European immigra- 
tion enter the electoral vote picture. As shown in Chapter III, the 
great majority of these immigrants join the Democratic Party. 
They also have a marked tendency to settle in populous doubtful 
states — states in which a handful of individual votes may swing 
a large block of electoral votes. Moreover, the number of immi- 
grants, Eastern European and other, is colossal (Chapter II). For 
a short account of the problem read “Displaced Persons: Facts vs. 
Fiction,” a statement by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, Chair- 
man of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the Senate, January 
6, 1950. Those interested in fuller details should read The Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Systems of tlte United States, referred 
to several times in Chapter II and elsewhere in this book. 

Let us now examine the significance of the fact that almost all 
recent Eastern European immigrants have joined the Democratic 
Party. Let us suppose that our present annual crop of immigrants 

Does the National Democratic Party Want War? 


adds each year a mere third of a million votes to die Democratic 
Party - in gratitude for connivance at their admittance, if for no 
other reason - and let us suppose also that in a “limited” war, or 
because of occupation” duties far from home, a half million 
Americans of native stock each year are either killed or prevented 
from becoming fathers because of absence from their wives or 

from the homes they would have established if they were not 
at war. 

The suggested figures of 300,000 and 500,000 are merely 
estimates, but they are extremely conservative. They are based 
not on a possible global war but on our present world ventures 
only -including those in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, and Germany. 
It thus appears that the combination of our loosely administered 
immigration laws and our foreign policy is changing the basic 
nature of our population at the rate of more than three-fourths 
ot a million a year. In case of a world-wide war, Uiere would be 
a rapid rise of die figure beyond 750,000. 

To help in an understanding of the significance of the decrease 
ot the native population occasioned by war here are for compar- 
ison some population results suffered by our principal opponent 
In Gemiany boys ex P ected to leave school in 

cS i 954, 1955, and 1956 number respectively 836,000, 

857,000, 897,000, 820,000 and 150,000. The final startling figure - 

which is for boys only - reflects the birth drop because of full- 
scale participation in World War II (Marion Doenhoff in Euro- 
pean Supplement to Human Events, September, 1950). 

Even so, German soldiers were nearer home and had more 
furloughs than will be possible for our men in Korea or elsewhere 
overseas whether or not a full-scale World War III develops. It is 
thus seen that. a combination of war deadis and fewer births 
among the native stock along with the immigration of leftist 
aliens might appear to some manipulators of the national Demo- 
cratic Party as a highly desired way to a surer grip on power. 
To such people, the boon of being a wheel in an ever-rolling 
Socialist machine might be worth more than the lives of soldiers 
snuffed out in the undertakings of Secretary of State Acheson 
or successors of similar ideology. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 


It is well to emphasize in this connection that the American 
sympathy for “Jewish refugees,” so carefully whipped up in large 
segments of the press and the radio, is mostly unjustified, as far 
as any hardship is concerned. Those "refugees” who arrived in 
Palestine were well-armed or soon became well-armed with weap- 
ons of Soviet or satellite origin, and were able to take care of 
themselves by killing native Arabs or expelling them from their 
homes. Those Judaized Khazars arriving in the United States lost 
no time in forming an “Association of Jewish Refugees and Immi- 
grants from Poland” (New York Times, March 29, 1944), which at 
once began to exert active political pressure. Many refugees were 
well-heeled with funds, portable commodities, or spoils from the 
lands of their origin. For instance, an article by the Scripps- 
Howard Special Writer, Henry J. Taylor, and an editorial in the 
Washington Daily News (July 18, 1945) told of a clean-up by 
aliens, “most of whom live in New York,” of $800,000,000 in profit 
on the N. Y. Stock Exchange in the Spring of 1945, “to say noth- > 
ing of real estate investments, commodity speculations, and pri- 
vate side deals,” with no capital gains tax because of their favored 
status as aliens. The Congress soon passed legislation designed to 
plug such loopholes in our tax laws, but the politically favored 
alien remains a problem in the field of tax collections. In 1951, for 
instance, patriotic U. S. Customs Service officials detected several 
hundred thousands of dollars worth of diamonds in the hollow 
shoe heels and in the hollow luggage frames of a group of "refu- 
gees” (the Newsletter of the U. S. Customs Service as quoted in 
Washington Newsletter by Congressman Ed Gossett, April 12, 
1951). In one way or another the average arriving refugee is, in 
a matter of months or in a few years at most, far better off eco- 
nomically than millions of native Americans whose relative status 
is lowered by the new aliens above them — aliens for whom in 
many instances native Americans perform menial work. This as- 
pect of immigration has long bothered American-minded mem- 
bers of Congress. A report of the House Committee on Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization of the Sixty-eighth Congress (1924) 
expressed the following principle: “Late comers are in all fair- 

Does the National Democratic Tarty Want War? 


ness not entitled to special privilege over those who have arrived 
at an earlier date and thereby contributed more to the advance- 
ment of the Nation” ( The Immigration and Naturalization Sys- 
tems of the United States, p. 61). 

The non-Christian alien of Eastern European origin not only 
in many cases deserves no sympathy except of course from those 
who cherish his ideological attachments and endorse his political 
purposes; he is also often a problem. His resistance to assimilation 
and his preferred nation-within-a-nation status have already been 
discussed. Another objectionable feature of “displaced persons” 
— suggested in the reference to smuggled diamonds — is their 
all-too-frequent lack of respect for United States law. A large 
number of future immigrants actually flout our laws before arriv- 
ing in tills country! Investigating in Europe, Senator McCarran 
found that such laws as u'e had on "displaced persons” were 
brazenly violated. He reported to the Senate in a speech, 
“Wanted: A Sound Immigration Policy for the United States” 
(February 28, 1950): 

I have stated and I repeat, that under the administration 
of the present act persons seeking the status of displaced per- 
sons have resorted to fraud, misrepresentation, fictitious docu- 
ments, and perjury in order to qualify for immigration into 
the United States. A responsible employee of the Displaced 
Persons Commission stated to me that lie believed one-third 
of the displaced persons qualifying for immigration to the 
United States had qualified on the basis of false and fraudu- 
lent documents. . . A former official of Army Intelligence in 
Germany testified before the full committee that certain vol- 
untary agencies advise displaced persons on how they might 
best evade our immigration laws. . . What is more, I was ad- 
vised by a high official of the inspector general’s office of the 
European command that they had “positive evidence that 
two of the religious voluntary agencies had been guilty of 
the forgery of documents in their own offices.” 

Senator McCarran quoted a letter (September 9, 1949) from 
Sam E. Woods, American Consul General at Munich, to the Sec- 
retary of State which tells that the alleged payment of "50 marks 


The Iron Curtain Ooer America 

through the wife of the president of the Jewish committee of the 
town” (Schwandorf, Bavaria), led to an investigation which 
showed “that a number of displaced persons, who had already 
departed for the United States, had previously caused their police 
records in Schwandorf to be changed.” The Senator also gave 
evidence that the head of the Displaced Persons Commission at 
Frankfurt in “direct violation of the law” caused to be removed 
from files those documents which would prevent the acceptance 
of a displaced person as an immigrant. Senator McCarTan’s find- 
ings were supported by overwhelming testimony. To cite one 
instance, Mr. Edward M. Slazek, a former “assistant selector” for 
the Displaced Persons Commission in Germany, testified before 
a Senate Judiciary sub-committee on immigration that he was 
fired because he protested the admission of “fake DP’s” through 
“wholesale fraud and bribery” (Washington Times-Herald). 

In view of findings and testimony, Senator McCarran urged 
caution on the bill HR 4567 by Mr. Emanuel Celler of New York, 
which provided for more Jewish immigrants, at Mr. Truman’s 
especial request. The president said his recommendations were in 
favor of more “Catholics and Jews,” but the Catholic World stated 
editorially that Catholics were satisfied with the law as it was. 

Senator McCarran’s efforts did not prevail. Tire Celler bill 
became Public Law 555, 81st Congress, when signed by the Pres- 
ident on June 16, 1950. It raised from 205,000 to 415,744 the 
number of "refugees” over and above quotas eligible legally to 
enter the United States. (The McCarran-Walter bill, designed to 
regulate immigration in the national interest, was vetoed by Presi- 
dent Truman, but became law when the Senate on June 27, 1952, 
followed the House in overriding the veto.) 

An additional serious aspect of “displaced persons” is their 
disposition to cause trouble. Without exception informed officials 
interviewed by the author as an intelligence officer in 1945 
advised caution on the indiscriminate admission of “refugees,” 
plenty of whom were in difficulty in their own lands for actual 
crimes and not for their political views. Further light on refugees, 
Jewish and other, in the period following VE Day is furnished by 
Major Harold Zink, a former Consultant on U. S. policy in Ger- 

Does the National Democratic Party Want War? 


many, in his book American Military Government in Germany 
(Macmillan, 1947). After stating that “displaced persons gave 
military government more trouble than any other problem” and 
mentioning the agitation to the end that “the best German houses 
be cleared of their occupants and placed at the disposal of the 
displaced persons, especially the Jews,” Professor Zink continues 
as follows (p. 122): 

Moreover, the displaced persons continued their under- 
ground war with the German population. . . With German 
property looted, German lives lost, and German women 
raped almost every day by the displaced persons, widespread 
resentment developed among the populace, especially when 
they could not defend themselves against the fire-amis which 
the displaced persons managed to obtain. 

Eastern European “displaced persons,” their associates, and 
their offspring do not always lose, on arriving in hospitable Amer- 
ica, their tendency to cause trouble. In a review of The Atom 
Spies by Arthur Pilat (Putnam), The New Yorker (May 10, 1952) 
states that “the most important people involved — Klaus Fuchs, 
David Greenglass, the Julius Rosenbergs, Harry Gold, and Mor- 
ton Sobell — were not professional spies and they weren’t much 
interested in money.” The review concludes by emphasizing “the 
clear and continuing danger of having among us an amorphous 
group of people who can be persuaded at any time to betray 
their country for what they are told are super-patriotic reasons.” 
An understanding of Zionism as a “super-patriotic” force — 
with a focus of interest outside of and alien to America — can be 
had from an editorial signed by Father Ralph Gorman, C.P., in 
The Sign (November, 1951): 

Zionism is not, at present at least, a humanitarian move- 
ment designed to help unfortunate Jewish refugees. It is a 
political and military organization, based squarely on race, 
religion, and nation, using brute force against an innocent 
people as the instrument for the execution of its policies. . . 

The Israelis have already carved a state out of Arab land 
and have driven 750,000 Arabs out of their homes into exile. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Now they look with covetous eyes on the rest of Palestine and 
even the territory across the Jordan. . . 

The Arabs are not fools. They realize what is being pre- 
pared for them— with American approval and money. They 
Imow that the sword is aimed at them and that, unless Zionist 
plans are frustrated, they will be driven back step by step into 
the desert — their lands, homes, vineyards, and farms taken 
over by an alien people brought from the ends of the earth 
for this purpose. 

Even worse in some aspects is a political philosophy — put 
into practice by "drives” to sell ‘Israeli” bonds, nation-wide 
propaganda, etc. — to the effect that "Israel is supposed to have a 
unique jurisdiction over the 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 Jews who 
live iu every country of the world outside it” (Mr. William 
Zuckerman, reporting, in the Jewish Newsletter, on "the recent 
World Zionist Congress held in Jerusalem,” as quoted by Father 

In view of the passages just quoted, why are America’s leftists 
so anxious for many more “refugees”? Can there be any conceiv- 
able reason except for the eager anticipation of their future votes? 
Can there be any motives other than anti-American in the opposi- 
tion to the McCarran-Walter law (p. 166)? Moreover, can any- 
one believe that continued subservience to “Israeli” aims is other 
than an invitation to war in the Middle East — a war which we 
would probably lose? 


Let us once more consider the foreign policy which is respon- 
sible for our present peril. 

Could it be that those who pull the strings from hidden seats 
behind the scenes, want Americans to be killed in Korea indef- 
initely and for no purpose; want the Arab world to turn against 
us; want a few hundred thousand young Americans killed in 
Germany, and want the reviving German state destroyed lest 
it somehow become again (see Chapter I) a bulwark against the 


Does the National Democratic Party Want War? 

present pagan rulers of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia? Such 
an eventuality, of course, -would be used to bring in from here and 
there as in World War II a great new horde of politically depend- 
able refugees — a boon to all leftists — a boon so great that no 
further challenge to their power could be conceivable. 

In answering the question, “Do those who pull the hidden 
strings really want war?” remember that the Soviet manpower 
reserves are many times greater than ours; their birthrate is nearly 
twice as high; they have millions of Chinese and other puppets 
willing to fight for rice and clothing. Without reserves from Asia, 
however, the Soviet strength in the European theater in 1951 was 
estimated by General Bonner Fellers as “175 divisions some 25 
of which are armored” (Human Events, January 21, 1951). In the 
Soviet’s favor also is the nature and extent of Soviet territory, 
which is characterized by miles and miles of marshes in summer 
and impenetrable snow in winter. The vast inhospitable areas of 
Russia caused even the tremendous Europe-based armies of 
Napoleon and Hitler to bog down to ultimate defeat. The long- 
range Soviet strategic aim according to Stalin is to induce the 
United States to follow a policy of self-destruction, and that goal 
can be best accomplished by our engaging in extended land war- 
fare far from home. Here is testimony from a speech recently 
delivered at Brown University by Admiral Harry E. Yamell, for- 
mer Commander-in-Chief of the United States Asiatic fleet: 

To a Russian war planner, the ideal situation would be a 
campaign against the Allies in Western Europe, where their 
army can be used to the greatest advantage, while their sub- 
marines can operate not far from home bases against the 
supply lines from the United States to Europe. 

Moreover in answering the question, “Do those who pull 
the hidden strings want war?” Americans, and particularly women, 
must remember, alas! that America is no longer “a preeminently 
Christian and conservative nation,” as General MacAithur de- 
scribed it in a speech to the Rainbow Division (1937) as his 
career as Chief of Staff of the Army was ending ( MacArthur On 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

War, by Frank C. Waldrop, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New \ork, 
1942). Americans who adhere doggedly to the idea that tradi- 
tional Christianity shall not disappear from our land must beware 
of the fallacy of thinking that, because they are merciful, other 
people are merciful. Mercy toward all mankind is a product of 
Christianity and is absent from the dialectic materialism of the 
new Rulers of Russia, whose tentacles reach to so many countries. 
Apart from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, the most famous pas- 
sage on mercy in the English language is Shakespeare s The 
quality of mercy.” It has been widely suppressed, along with the 
teaching of the play, The Merchant of Venice, which contains it 
(Chapter V, above). 

It is thus well to reflect constantly that Soviet leaders are 
moved by no consideration of humanity as the term is understood 
in the Christian West Instead of relieving a famine, the rulers of 
Russia are reported to have let millions of Russians die in order to 
restore in a given province, or oblast, a safe balance between pro- 
ductivity and population. Similarly, according to Chinese Nation- 
alist sources - and others - the Chinese Communists “backed by 
Russia” have decided that they must accomplish the “eventual' 
extermination of 150,000,000 Chinese” to reduce Chinese popula- 
tion, now between 450,000,000 and 475,000,000, “to more man- 
ageable proportions” (AP dispatch, Dallas Morning News, and 
other papers, March 12, 1951). This is necessar>% under the Com- 
munist theory, if China is to be a strong country without the 
permanent internal problem of hordes of people near starvation, 
or likely to be so by the ravages of drouth and flood. 

This brings us again to the testimony before Congress by Sec- - 
retary of Defense Marshall (May 8 and following, 1951) that our 
purpose in Korea was to bleed the Chinese until they got bred 
and cried halt. For Chinese Communist leaders, who “need” 
a population reduction of 150,000,000 people, there is only 
delighted amusement in such U. S. official statements, intended 
to justify our war policy and reassure the American publicl 
Equally amusing for them is the official U. S. statement that -we 
are inflicting casualties much greater than those we are sustain- 
ing. Even apart from any Chinese Communist population reduc- 

Does the National Democratic Party Went War? 


tion policy, their present population is three times ours, and they 
have no plans, as we have, to use elements of their population 
to save Europe and "police” foreign areas! 

The Kremlin laughter at our acceptance of continuing Amer- 
ican casualties under such an insane motivation as bleeding the 
Chinese and at our waste of materiel must have been even more 
hearty than that of the Chinese Communists. Yet these appalling 
facts constituted the foreign policy of our top State Department 
and Defense Department leaders under the Acheson and Marshall 

It appears then that U. S. leftists, including those who 
control the National Democratic Party want war, Socialistic con- 
trols, and plenty of casualties, and not one fact known to the 
author points to the contrary. Full-scale war, of course, would be 
edged into in devious ways with carefully prepared propaganda, 
calculated to fool average Americans, including ignorant and de- 
luded basically patriotic people in the Democratic Party. There 
would, of course, be an iron curtain of complete censorship, gov- 
ernmental and other. 

Dazed by propaganda verbiage, American boys will not 
understand — any more than when talking to General Eisenhower 
during World War II — but they will give their fair young lives: 

Theirs not to reason why, 

. Theirs but to do and die. 

"Greater love hath no man than this,” said the Saviour (St. 
John, XV, 13), “that a man lay down his life for his friends." But 
nowhere in scripture or in history is there a justification for wast- 
ing precious young life in the furtherance of sinister political 

Cleaning the Augean S tables 


Chapter VIII 


In ancient fable one of the giant labors of Hercules was clean- 
ing the labyrinthine stables of King Augeas who possessed "an 
immense wealth of herds” ( Encyc . Brit., II, 677) and twelve 
sacred bulls. The removal of accumulated filth was accomplished 
in the specified time and the story of difficulty successfully over- 
come has been told through the ages for entertainment and for 

The modem significance of the parable of Hercules may be 
thus interpreted. King Augeas is Mr. Truman. The sacred bulls 
are those high and mighty individuals who control and deliver 
the votes of minority’ blocs" The filth is the nineteen-year accumu- 
lation of Communists and fellow-travelers in the various depart- 
ments, executive agencies, bureaus, and what not, of our govern- 
ment. To clean out the filth, there can be but one Hercules - an 
aroused American people. 

Exactly how can the American people proceed under our laws 
to clean out subversives and other scoundrels from our govern- 
ment? There are three principal ways: (a) by a national election; 

(b) by the constitutional right of expressing their opinion; and 

(c) by influencing the Congress to exercise certain powers vested 
in tire Congress by the Constitution, including the power of 


A national election is the normal means employed by the 
people to express their will for a change of policy. There are 
reasons, however, why such a means should not be exclusively 
relied on. For one thing, a man elected by the people may lose 
completely the confidence of the people and do irreparable dam- 
age by bad appointive personnel and bad policies after one elec- 
tion and before another. In the second place, our two leading 
parties consist of so many antagonistic groups wearing a common 
label that candidates for president and vice-president represent 


compromises and it is hard to get a clear-cut choice as between 
Democrats and Republicans. For instance, in the campaigns of 
1940, 1944, and 1948 the Republicans offered the American voters 
Wendell Willkie, and Thomas Dewey — twice! Willkie was a sin- 
cere but poorly informed and obviously inexperienced “one- 
wo rider,” apparently with a soft spot toward Communism, or at 
least a blind spot, as evidenced in his hiring or lending himself 
as a lawyer to prevent government action against alleged Com- 
munists. Thus, among “the twelve Communist Party leaders” 
arrested July 26, 1951, was William Schneiderman, “State Chair- 
man of tire Communist Party of California and a member of the 
Alternate National Committee of the Communist Party of the 
United States.” The preceding quotations are from the New York 
Times (July 27, 1951), and the article continues: “With the late 
Wendell L. Willkie as his counsel, Schneiderman defeated in the 
Supreme Court in 1943 a government attempt to revoke his citi- 
zenship for his political associations. Schneiderman was bom in 
Russia.” Likewise, Governor Dewey of New York, campaigning 
on a “don’t bother the Communists” program, won the Oregon 
Republican presidential primary election in 1948 in a close con- 
test from Harold Stassen, who endorsed anti-Communist legisla- 
tion. Governor Dewey, largely avoiding issues, except in this 
instance, moved on to nomination and to defeat. The moral seems 
to be that the American people see no reason to change from the 
Democratic Party to the Republican Party with a candidate favor- 
able to or indifferent to Communism. With such a Republican 
candidate, a Democratic candidate may be favored by some con- 
servatives who rely on the more or less conservative Democrats 
— who extend from Maryland in an arc through the South around 
to Nevada — to block the extreme radicalism of a Democratic 
administration. Governor Dewey followed the Roosevelt path not 
only in a disinclination to combat Communism; in such matters as 
the “purge” of Senator Revercomb of West Virginia, he showed 
evidence of a dictatorial intention to which not even Roosevelt 
would have presumed. 

Thus, however much one may hope for a pair of strong, 
patriotic, and able Democratic candidates or a pair of strong. 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

patriotic, and able Republican candidates at the next election, 
there is no certainty of a realized hope. There is likewise no cer- 
tainty of success in the move of a number of patriotic people in 
both parties to effect a merger of American-minded Republicans 
and non-leftist Democrats in time for a slate of coalition candi- 
dates in the next presidential election. This statement is not meant 
to disparage the movement, whose principal sponsor Senator Karl 
Mundt represents a state (South Dakota) not in the Union during 
tire Civil War and is therefore an ideal leader of a united party of 
patriotic Americans both Northern and Southern. 

Senator Mundt’s proposal deserves active and determined 
support, because it is logical for people who feel the same way 
to vote together. Moreover, the effective implementation of the 
Mundt proposal would certainly be acclaimed by the great body 
of the people — those who acclaimed General MacArthur on his 
return from Tokyo. The stumbling-block, of course, is that it is 
very hard for the great body of tire people to make itself politi- 
cally effective either in policy or in the selection of delegates to 
the national nominating conventions, since leaders already in 
office will, with few exceptions, be reluctant to change the setup 
(whatever its evil) under which they became leaders. 

To sum up, a coalition team — as Senator Mundt proposes — 
would be admirable. Nevertheless, other methods of effecting a 
change of our national policy must be explored. 


A possible way for the American public to gain its patriotic 
ends is by the constitution-protected right of petition (First 
Amendment). The petition, whether in the form of a document 
with many signatures or a mere individual letter, is far more effec- 
tive than the average individual is likely to believe. In all cases 
the letters received are beyond question tabulated as straws in 
tire wind of public opinion; and to a busy Congressman or Sen- 
ator a carefully prepared and well documented letter from a per- 
son he can trust may well be a guide to policy. The author thus 
summed up the influence of letters in his book Image of Life 
(Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1940, pp. 207-208)? 

Cleaning the Augean Stables 

It is perhaps unfortunate, but undeniably true that letter- 
writers wield a powerful influence in America. Along with the 
constant newspaper and magazine "polls” of citizens and 
voters, letters are the modem politician's method of keeping 
his ear to the ground. This fact was startlingly illustrated in 
1939 by a high executive’s issuing a statement justifying a cer- 
tain governmental stand by an analysis of the correspondence 
received on the subject. Since the letter wields this influence, 
and since it is one of the chief weapons of the organized 
minority, public-spirited citizens should use it, too. They 
should write to members of state legislatures. United States 
Congressmen and Senators, and other government officials 
endorsing or urging measures which the writers believe 
necessary for the good of the country. Similar letters of sup- 
port should of course be written to any others in or out 
of government service, who are under the fire of minorities 
for courageous work in behalf of decency, morality, and 

The use of the letter for political purposes by organized 
groups is illustrated by the fact that a certain congressman (his 
words to the author in Washington) received in one day more 
than 5,000 letters and other forms of communication urging him 
to vote for a pending measure favorable to “Israel,” and not one 
post card on the other side! 

Letters in great volume cannot be other than effective. To any 
Congressman, even though he disapproves of the policy or meas- 
ure endorsed by the letters, they raise the question of his being 
possibly in error in view of such overwhelming opposition to his 
viewpoint. To a Congressman who believes sincerely — as some 
do — that he is an agent whose duty is not to act on his own judg- 
ment, but to carry out the people’s will, a barrage of letters is a 
mandate on how to vote. Apparently for the first time, those fav- 
oring Western Christian civilization adopted the technique of the 
opposition and expressed themselves in letters to Washington on 
the dismissal of General MacArthur. 

In addition to writing letters to the President and his staff 
and to one's own senators and congressmen, the patriotic Amer- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 


ican should write letters to other senators and congressmen who 
are members of committees concerned with a specific issue (see 
c, below). In this way, he will meet and possibly frustrate the 
new tactics of the anti-American element which, from its news- 
paper advertisements, seems to be shifting its controlled letters 
from a writer’s “own congressman and senators” to “committee 


chairmen and committee members.” For the greater effectiveness 
which comes from a knowledge of the structure of the govern- 
ment, the functions of its subdivisions, and the names of its 
officials, it is exceedingly important that each patriotic citizen 
possess or have access to a copy of the latest Congressional Direc- 
tory ( Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C., $1.50). 

The patriotic citizen should not let his or her letter writing 
stop with letters to officials in Washington. Letters along construc- 
tive lines should be sent to other influential persons such as 
teachers, columnists, broadcasters, and judges letting them know 
the writer’s views. Persons such as Judge Medina, who presided 
in a fair and impartial manner over a trial involving charges of 
communism, are inundated by letters and telegrams of calumny 
and villification (his words to the author and others at a meeting 
of the Columbia Alumni in Dallas). To such officials, a few letters 
on the other side are heartening. 

Letters to newspapers are especially valuable. Whether pub- 
lished or not, they serve as opinion-indicators to a publisher. 
Those that are published are sometimes clipped and mailed to the 
White House and to members of the Congress by persons x ^yho 
feel unable to compose letters of their own. The brevity of these 
letters and their voice-of-the-people flavor cause them also to be 
read by and thus to influence many who will not cope with the 
more elaborate expressions of opinion by columnists and editorial 

( c ) 

As the ninth printing of The Iron Curtain Over America was 
being prepared (summer of 1952) for the press , it became a fact of 
history that President Truman would not succeed himself for the 
presidential term , 1953-1957. The following pages of this chapter 
should therefore be read not as a specific recommendation directed 

Cleaning the Augean Stables 

o o 

against Mr. Truman but as a general consideration of the question 
of influencing executive action through pressure upon Congres- 
sional committees and — in extreme cases — by impeachment , with 
the acts and policies of Mr . Truman and his chief officials used as 
illustrative material. 

If the pressure of public opinion by a letter barrage or other- 
wise is of no avail, because of already existing deep commitments 
as a pay-off for blocs of votes or for other reasons, there are other 

The best of these, as indicated under (b) above, is to work 
through the appropriate committees of the Congress. 

Unfortunately the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate 
has a majority of members willing to play along with almost any 
vote-getting scheme. It was only by the skillful maneuvering of 
the Chairman, Senator Tom Connally of Texas, that the Commit- 
tee was prevented from passing during World War II a pro- 
Zionist resolution on the Middle East which might have preju- 
diced the American victory in the war. Despite Mr. Acheson s 
record, every Republican on the Committee approved the nomi- 
nation of that “career man” to be Secretary of State ( telegram of 
Senator Tom Connally to the author. See also the article by C. P. 
Trassell, New York Times , January 19, 1949). Thus with no 
Republican opposition to attract possible votes from the Demo- 
' cratic majority, the committee vote on Acheson’s confirmation 
was unanimous! Parenthetically, a lesson is obvious — namely, 
that both political parties should in the future be much more 
careful than in the past in according committee membership to 
a Senator, or to a Representative, of doubtful suitability for 
sharing the committee’s responsibilities. 

Despite one very unfortunate selection, the Republican mem- 
bership of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs averages up 
better than the Republican membership of the Senate Committee 
on Foreign Relations. The House Committee is not so influential, 
however, because of the Constitution’s express vesting of foreign 
policy in the Senate. 

In contrast, however, the House Appropriations Committee is 
under the Constitution more influential than the Appropriations 
Committee in the Senate, and might under public pressure with- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

hold funds (U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 6) 1 

from a government venture, office, or individual believed inim- | 
ical to the welfare of the United States (see George Sokolsky’s | 

syndicated column, Dallas Morning News and other papers, Jan. j 

23, 1951). In the matter of appropriations, the Senate Committee 
on Appropriations has, however, made a great record in safe- 
guarding what it believes to be the public interest. For example, 
in 1946 the senior Republican member of this vital Senate Com- 
mittee was instrumental in achieving the Congressional elimina- 
tion from the State Department budget of $4,000,000 earmarked 
for the Alfred McCormack unit — an accomplishment which 
forced the exit of that undesired "Special Assistant to the Secre- 
tary of State.” There is no reason why this thoroughly Constitu- 
tional procedure should not be imitated in the 1950*s. The issue 
was raised for discussion by Congressman John Phillips of Cali- 
fornia, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, in May, 

1951 (AP dispatch in the Times-Herald, Dallas, May 14, 1951). i 
In mid- 1950 the House Committee on Un-American Activities 
seemed to need prodding by letters from persons in favor of the | 

survival of America. The situation was described thus in a Wash- I 

ington Times-Herald (November 26, 1950) editorial entitled • 
"Wake tire Watchman": I 

The reason the committee has gone to sleep is that it is 
now, also for the first time in its history, subservient to the 
executive departments which have so long hid the Com- 
munists and fought the committee. 

For evidence, compare the volume entitled Hearings ! 

Regarding Communism in the United States Government — 

Part 2, that record committee proceedings of Aug. 28 and 31, 
and Sept. 1 and 15, 1950, with the records of comparable 
inquiries any year from the committee’s origin in 1938 down 
to 1940 when the present membership took over. 

The witnesses who appeared before the committee in 
these latest hearings need no explaining. They were: Lee 
Pressman, Abraham George Silverman, Nathan Witt, Charles 
Kramer, John J. Abt and Max Lowenthal. This handsome 
galaxy represents the very distilled essence of inside knowl- 
edge on matters that can help the people of this Republic 

Cleaning the Augean Stables 


understand why we are now wondering where Stalin is going 
to hit us next. 

At least one. Max Lowenthal, is an intimate friend of 
President Truman, regularly in and out of side entrances at 
the White House. 

Perhaps that accounts — of course it does — for the ano- 
gant assurance with which Lowenthal spit in the committee's 
eye when he was finally brought before it for a few feeble 

Incidentally, "Truman was chosen as candidate for Vice Pres- 
ident by Sidney Hillman, at the suggestion (according to Jona- 
than Daniels in his recent book A Man of Independence) of Max 
Lowenthal . . . ( The Last Phase,” by Edna Lonigan, Human 
Events, May 2, 1951). 

In fairness to the present membership, however, it is well to 
add that, from a variety of circumstances, the Committee has 
suffered from a remarkable and continuing turn-over of member- 
ship since the convening of the Slst Congress in January, 1949. 
New regulations - passed for the purpose by the Democratic 
81st Congress, which was elected along with President Truman in 
1948 — drove from the Committee two of its most experienced 
and aggressive members: Mr. Rankin of Mississippi, because 
he was Chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and Mr. 
Hebert of Louisiana, because he was not a lawyer. In January, 
1949, the experienced Congressman Karl Mundt of South Dakota 
left the House and his membership on the Committee to take Iris 
seat in the Senate. Promotion to the Senate (Dec. 1, 1930) like- 
wise cost the Committee the services of Congressman Richard 
Nixon of California, the member most active in the preliminaries 
to the trial of Alger Hiss, In the election of 1930, Representative 
Francis Case of South Dakota was advanced to the Senate. After 
a single term on the Committee, Congressman Burr P. Harrison of 
Virginia became a member of the Ways and Means Committee, 
an appointment which excluded him from the Committee on 
Un-American Activities. Thus when the Committee was recon- 
stituted at the opening of the 82nd Congress in January, 1951, 
only one man, Chairman John S. Wood of Georgia, had had more 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

than one full two-year term of service and a majority of the nine 
members were new. 

The Committee, like all others, needs letters of encourage- 
ment to offset pressure from pro-Communist elements, but there 
were evidences in 1951 of its revitalization. On April 1, 1951, it 
issued a report entitled “The Communist Peace Offensive,” which 
it described as “the most dangerous hoax ever devised by the 
international Communist conspiracy” (see Recl-iicators in the 
Communist Peace Offensive, National Council for American Edu- 
cation, 1 Maiden Lane, New York 8S, N. Y.). Moreover, in 1951 
the committee was again probing the important question of Com- 
munism in the motion picture industries at Hollywood, California. 
Finally, late in 1951, the Un-American Activities Committee 
issued a “brand new” publication, a “Guide Rook to Subversive 
Organizations,” highly recommended by the American Legion 
(copies may be had from the National Americanism Division, The 
American Legion, 700 N. Pennsylvania St., Indianapolis, Ind.; 
25£; in lots of 25 or more, 15£. See, also, pp. 101-103, above). 

Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee is also accom- 
plishing valuable work in the exposure of the nature and methods 
of the Communist infiltration. Its xvork is referred to, its chairman 
Senator McCarran of Nevada is quoted, and its documents are 
represented by excerpts here and there in this book. 

The Rules Committee of the House was restored to its tradi- 
tional power by the 82nd Congress in 1951 and may also prove an 
effective brake on bills for implementing the dangerous policies 
of an incompetent, poorly advised, or treasonable leadership in 
the executive departments. 

As a last resort, however, a President of the United States or 
any other member of the Executive or Judicial Branches of the 
government can be removed by impeachment. Article I, Section 
2, paragraph 5; Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6; Article II, Sec- 
tion 1, paragraph 6; and Article II, Section 4, paragraph 1 of the 
U. S. Constitution name the circumstances under which, and pro- 
vide explicitly the means by which, a majority of the representa- 
tives and two-thirds of the senators can remove a president who is 
guilty of "misdemeanors” or shows “inability” to perform the high 


Cleaning the Augean Stables 

functions of his office. Surely some such construction might have 
been placed upon Mr. Truman’s gross verbal attack (1950) upon 
the United States Marine Corps, whose members were at the time 
dying in Korea, or upon his repeated refusal to cooperate with 
Canada, with Congress, or with the Courts in facing up to the 
menace of the 43,217 known Communists said by J. Edgar Hoover 
(AP dispatch, Washington Times-Herald, March 26, 1951) to be 
operating in this country, with ten times that many following the 
Communist line in anti-American propaganda and all of them 
ready for sabotage in vital areas if the Soviet Union should give 
the word (AP dispatch, Dallas Times-Herald, February 8, 1950). 

The matter of President Truman’s unwillingness to move 
against Communism came to a head with the passage of the 
Internal Security Act of 1950. Under the title, “Necessity for 
Legislation,” the two Houses of Congress found as follows: 

(1) There exists a world Communist movement which, 
in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a 
world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by 
treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental 
and otherwise ) , espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other 
means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitar- 
ian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through 
the medium of a world-wide Communist organization. . . 

(12) The Communist network in the United States is in- 
spired and controlled in large part by foreign agents who are 
sent into the United States ostensibly as attaches of foreign 
legations, afliiliates of international organizations, members of 
trading commissions, and in similar capacities, but who use 
their diplomatic or semi-diplomatic status as a shield behind 
which to engage in activities prejudicial to the public security. 

( 13 ) There are, under our present immigration laws, nu- 
merous aliens who have been found to be deportable, many 
of whom are in the subversive, criminal, or immoral classes 
who are free to roam the country at will without supervision 
or control. . . 

(15) . . . The Communist organization in the United 
States, pursuing its stated objectives, the recent successes of 
Communist methods in other countries, and the nature and 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

control of the world Communist movement itself, present a 
dear and present danger to the security of the United States 
and to the existence of free American institutions, and make 
it necessary that Congress, in order to provide for the com- 
mon defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United States 
as an independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a 
republican form of government, enact appropriate legislation 
recognizing the existence of such world-wide conspiracy and 
designed to prevent it from accomplishing its purpose in tho 
United States, 

A measure for curbing Communism in the United States — 
prepared in the light of the above preamble — was approved by 
both Senate and House. It was then sent to the President. What 
did he do? 

He vetoed it 

Thereupon both Senate and House (September 22, 1950) 
overrode the President’s veto by far more than the necessary two- 
thirds majorities, and tire Internal Security Act became “Public 
Law 831 — 81st Congress — Second Session.” The enforcement of 
the law, of course, became tire responsibility of its implacable 
enemy, the head of the Executive Branch of our government! 
But the President’s efforts to block the anti-Communists did not 
end with that historic veto. “President Truman Thursday rejected 
a Senate committee’s request for complete files on the State De- 
partment’s loyalty-security cases on the ground that it would be 
‘clearly contrary’ to the public interest” (AP dispatch, Washington, 
April 3, 1952). To what “public” did Mr. Truman refer? The 
situation was summed up well by General MacArthur in a speech 
before a joint session of the Mississippi legislature (March 22, 
1952). The general stated that our policy is “leading ns toward 
a communist state with as dreadful certainty as though the lead- 
ers of the Kremlin themselves were charting our course.” 

In view of his veto of the Internal Security Act and his con- 
cealment of security data on government employees from Con- 
gressional committees, it is hard to exonerate Mr. Truman from 
the suspicion of having more concern for leftist votes than for 
the safety or survival of the United States. Such facts naturally 

Cleaning the Augean Stables 


suggest an inquiry into the feasibility of initiating the process 
of impeachment. 

Another possible ground for impeachment might be the Pres- 
ident’s apparent violation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 
Paragraph 11, which vests in Congress the power “To declare 
war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concern- 
ing captures on land and water.” This authority of the Congress 
has never been effectively questioned. Thus in his "Political 
Observations” (1795) James Madison wrote "The Constitution 
expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of 
declaring a state of war” (quoted from “Clipping of Note,” No. 38, 
The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on- 
Hudson, New York). Subsequent interpreters of our basic State 
Paper, except perhaps some of those following in the footsteps 
of Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Chapter III, above), have 

It was seemingly in an effort to avoid the charge of violating 
this provision of the Constitution that President Truman, except 
for a reported occasional slip of the tongue, chose to refer to 
his commitment of our troops in Korea as a “police action” and 
not a war. Referring to the possibility of President Truman’s send- 
ing four additional divisions to Europe where there was no war. 
Senator Byrd of Virginia said: "But if by chance he does ignore 
Congress, Congress has ample room to exercise its authority by 
the appropriations method and it would be almost grounds for 
impeachment” (UP dispatch in Washington Times-Herald, March 
15, 1951), The distinguished editor and commentator David 
Lawrence ( U . S. News and World Report, April 20, 1951) also 
brought up the question of impeachment: 

If we are to grow technical, Congress, too, has some con- 
stitutional rights. It can impeach President Truman not only 
for carrying on a war in Korea without a declaration of war 
by Congress, but primarily for failing to let our troops fight 
the enemy with all the weapons at their command. 

The question of President Truman’s violation of the Con- 
stitution in the matter of committing our troops in Korea has been 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

raised with overwhelming logic by Senator Karl Mundt of South 
Dakota. Article 43 of the United Nations charter, as the Senator 
points out, provides that member nations of the UN shall supply 
armed forces “in accordance with their respective constitutional 
processes.” Thus the starting of the Truman-Acheson war in 
Korea not only violated the United States Constitution, but com- 
pletely lacked United Nations authority — until such authority 
was voted retroactively! (Washington Times-IIerald, May 17, 
1951; also see Chapter VI, d, above.) 

The House in the 81st Congress several times overrode a Tru- 
man veto by more than the Constitutional two-thirds vote. Even 
in that 81st Congress, more than five-sixths of the Senators 
voted to override the President’s veto of the McCarran-Mundt- 
Nixon anti-Communist bill, which became Public Law 831. With 
the retirement of Mrs. Helen Douglas and other noted admin- 
istration supporters, and Mr. Vito Marcantonio, the 82nd Con- 
gress is probably even less inclined than the predecessor Congress 
to tolerate the Truman attitude toward the control of subversives 
and might not hesitate in a moment of grave national peril to 
certify to the Senate for possible impeachment for a violation of 
the Constitution the name of a man so dependent on leftist 
votes or so sympathetic with alien thought that he sees no 
menace — merely a “red herring” — in Communism. 

With the defeat of such ‘left of center” men — to use a term 
which President Franklin Roosevelt applied to himself — as 
Claude Pepper, Frank Graham, and Glen Taylor and such admin- 
istration henchmen as Millard Tydings, Scott Lucas, and Francis 
Myers; with the election from the House of new members such 
as Everett Dirksen, Richard Nixon, and Francis Case; and with 
other new members such as Wallace F. Bennett, John M. Butler, 
and Herman Welker, the Senate also might not hesitate in a 
moment of grave national peril to take appropriate steps toward 
impeachment under the Constitution. 

Incidentally, a rereading of tire Constitution of the United 
States is particularly valuable to anyone who is in doubt as to the 
relative importance of the Congress, tire President, and the Su- 
preme court under the basic law of the land. Whereas tire Con- 


Cleaning the Augean Stables 

gress is granted specific authority to remove for cause the Pres- 
ident and any other executive or a Justice of the Supreme Court, 
neither the President nor the Supreme Court has any authority 
whatsoever over the qualifications or tenure of office of a Senator 
or a Representative. Good books on the Constitution, both by 
Thomas James Norton, are The Constitution of the United States, 
Its Sources and Its Application (World Publishing Company, 
Cleveland, 1940) and Undermining The Constitution, A History 
of Lawless Covernment (The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 
1951 ). In another valuable book, The Key to Peace (The Heritage 
Foundation, Inc., 75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1, Illinois), the 
author. Dean Clarence Manion of the Notre Dame Law School, 
develops the idea that the key to peace is the protection of the 
individual under our Constitution. 

With reference again to impeachment, an examination of the 
career of other high executives including the Secretary of State 
might possibly find one or more of them who might require 
investigation on the suspicion of unconstitutional misdemeanors. 

Despite the bitter fruit of Yalta, Mr. Aehcson never issued a 
recantation. He never repudiated his affirmation of lasting fidelity 
to his beloved friend, Alger Hiss, who was at Yalta as die newly 
appointed State Department “Director of Special Political 
Affairs. Despite the Chinese attack on our troops in Korea, Mr. 
Acheson never, to the author’s knowing, admitted the error, if not 
the treason, of the policy of his department’s Bureau of Far East- 
ern Affairs down to and including the very year of 1950, when 
these Chinese Communists, die darlings of the dominant Leftists 
of our State Department, attacked us in the moment of our vic- 
tory over the Communists of North Korea. “What then will you 
do with the fact that as concerning Soviet Russia, from Yalta to 
diis day, every blunder in American foreign policy has turned 
out to be what the Kremlin might have wished this country to do? 
All you can say is that if there had been a sinister design it would 
look like diis” ( The Freeman, June 18, 1951). 

General Marshall was at Yalta as Chief of Staff of die U. S. 
Army. According to press reports, he never remembered what he 
was doing the night before Pearl Harbor. At Yalta, it was not 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

memory but judgment that failed him for he was the Superior 
Officer who tacitly, if not heartily, approved the military deals 
along the Elbe and the Yalu — deals which are still threatening to 
ruin our country. General Ambassador Marshall not only failed 
miserably in China; Secretary of State Marshall took no effective 
steps when a Senato Appropriations subcommittee, according to 
Senator Ferguson of Michigan, handed him a memorandum 
stating in part: “It becomes necessary due to the gravity of tire 
situation to call your attention to a condition that developed and 
still flourishes in the State Department under the administration 
of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there is a deliberate, calcu- 
lated program being carried out not only to protect communist 
personnel in high places but to reduce security and intelligence 
protection to a nullity” (INS, Washington Times-Herald, July 24, 
1950). The reference to Acheson was to Undersecretary Acheson, 
as he then was. Unfortunately in late 1951, when General Mar- 
shall ceased to be Secretary' of Defense, he was replaced by an- 
other man, Robert A. Lovett, who, whatever his personal views, 
carried nevertheless the stigma of having been Undersecretary 
of State from July, 1947, to January, 1949 ( Congressional Direc- 
tory, 82nd Congress, 1st Session, p. 365), when our position in 
China was being ruined under the then Secretary of State, 
George C. Marshall. 

The pro-Soviet accomplishments of the high-placed leftists 
and their dupes in our government are brilliantly summed up by 
Edna Lonigan in Human Events (Sept. 8, 1948): 

Our victorious armies halted where Stalin wished. His fol- 
lowers managed Dumbarton Oaks, UN, UNRRA, our Polish 
and Spanish policies. They gave Manchuria and Northern 
Korea to Communism. They demoted General Patton and 
wrote infamous instructions under which General Marshall 
was sent to China. They dismantled German industry, ran the 
Nuremberg trials and even sought to dictate our economic 
policy in Japan. Their greatest victory was the “Morgenthau 

And the astounding thing is that except for the dead (Roose- 


Cleaning the Augean Stables 

velt, Hillman, Hopkins, Winant) and Mr. Morgenthau, and Mr. 
Hiss, and General Marshall, most of those chiefly responsible for 
our policy as described above were still in power in June, 19521 

In solemn truth, do not seven persons share most of the 
responsibility' for establishing the Communist grip on tire world? 
Are not the seven: (1) Marx, the founder of violent Communism; 
(2) Engels, the promoter of Marx; (3, 4, 5) Trotsky, Lenin, and 
Stalin; (6) Franklin D. Roosevelt, who rescued the tottering 
Communist empire by recognition (1933), by the resultant finan- 
cial support, by his refusal to proceed against Communists in the 
United States, and by the provisions of the Yalta Conference; 
and (7) Harry S. Truman, who agreed at Potsdam to the destruc- 
tion of Germany and thereafter followed the Franklin Roosevelt 
policy of refusing to act against Communists in the United States 
— the one strong nation which remains as a possible obstacle to 
Communist world power? 

In spite of the consolidation of Stalin’s position in Russia by 
Franklin Roosevelt and by Stalin’s “liquidation” of millions of 
anti-Communists in Russia after Roosevelt’s recognition, the 
Soviet Union in 1937 was stymied in its announced program of 
world conquest by two road-blocks: Japan in tire East and Ger- 
many in the West. These countries, the former the size of Cali- 
fornia and the latter the size of Texas, were small for great pow- 
ers, and since their main fears were of the enormous, hostile, and 
nearby Soviet Union, they did not constitute an actual danger to 
the United States. The men around Roosevelt, many of them 
later around Truman, not merely defeated but destroyed the 
two road-blocks against the spread of Stalinist Communism! 
Again we come to the question: Should the United States con- 
tinue to use the men whose stupidity or treason built the Soviet 
Union into the one great land power of the world? 

In continuing to employ people who were in office during the 
tragic decisions of Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, are we not 
exactly as sensible as a hypothetical couple who employ the 
same baby sitter who has already killed three of their children? 

“By What Faith, Then, Can We Find Hope in Those Whose 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Past Judgments So Grievously Erred?” asked Senator Ecton of 
Montana on September 7, 1951. “Can We Trust the Future to 
Those Who Betrayed the Past?” asked Senator Jenner of Indiana 
in a speech in the Senate of tire United States on September 19, 
1950. Whatever the cause of our State Department's perform- 
ances, so tragic for America, in 1945 and thereafter (see also 
Chapter VI, above), the answer to Senator Jenner’s point blank 
question is an incontrovertible “No.” 

Congressmen, the patriotic elements in the press, and the 
letter-writing public should continually warn tire President, how- 
ever, that a mere shuffling around of the same old cast of Yalta 
actors and others “whose past judgments so grievously erred” 
will not be sufficient. We must not again have tolerators of 
extreme leftism, such as Mr. John J. McCloy, who was Assistant 
Secretary of War from April, 1941, to November, 1945, and Major 
General Clayton Bissell, who was A.C. of S.G.-2, i.e., the Army’s 
Chief of Intelligence, from Feb. 5, 1944, “to the end of the war” 
(Who's Who in America, 1950-1951, pp. 179S and 232). In Feb- 
ruary, 1945, these high officials were questioned by a five-man 
committee created by the new 79th Congress to investigate 
charges of communism in the War Department. 

In the New York Times of February' 28 (article by Lewis 
Wood), Mr. McCloy is quoted as follows: 

The facts point to the difficulties of legal theory which are 
involved in taking the position that mere membership in the 
Communist party’, present or past should exclude a person 
from the anny or a commission. But beyond any questions of 
legal theory, a study of the question and our experience con- 
vinced me that we were not on sound ground in our investi- 
gation when we placed emphasis solely on Communist affili- 

According to some newspapers, Mr. McCloy's testimony gave 
the impression that he did not care if 49% of a man’s loyalty was 
elsewhere provided he was 51% American. The validity of Christ’s 
“No man can serve two masters” was widely recalled to mind. 
Edward N. Scheiberling, National Commander of the American 



Cleaning the Augean Stables 

o o 

Legion, referring to Assistant Secretary of War McCloy’s testi- 
mony, stated (New York Times , March 2, 1945): 

That the Assistant Secretary had testified that the new 
policy of the armed forces would admit to officer rank per- 
sons 49 per cent loyal to an alien power, and only 51 per 
cent loyal to the United States. 

The Legion head asserted further: 

Fifty-one per cent loyalty is not enough when the secur- 
ity of our country is at stake. . . The lives of our sons, the vital 
military secrets of our armed forces must not be entrusted to 
men of divided loyalty. 

11 le Washington Timcs-H erald took up the cudgels against 
Mr. McCloy and he was shifted to the World Bank and thence 
to the post of High Commissioner of Germany (Chapter VI, 
above). With sufficient documentation to appear convincing, 
The Freeman as late as August 27, 1951, stated that “Mr. McCloy 
seems to be getting and accepting a kind of advice that borders 
on mental disorder.” 

General Bissell was moved from A.C. of S., G-2 to U. S. Mili- 
tary Attache at London. He received, a little later, a bon voyage 
present of a laudatory feature article in the Communist Daily 
Worker . Below the accompanying portrait (Daily Worker, June 
20, 1947) was the legend “Maj. Cen. Clayton Bissell, wartime 
head of the U. S. Army Intelligence Corps, who defended Com- 
munist soldiers from the attacks of Washington seat- warmers 
during tire war.” 

What of the Congressional Committee? Though it had been 
created and ordered to work by a coalition of patriotic Repub- 
licans and Southern Democrats, each party chose its own com- 
mittee members. The Democratic majority in the House chose 
members to its ‘left-of-center” liking, and the committee (Chair- 
man: Mr. Thomason of Texas!) by a strict party vote of 3-2 ex- 
pressed itself as satisfied with the testimony of McCloy and Bissell. 

Surely the American public wants no high officials tolerant 
of Communists or thanked by Communists for favors rendered. 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

Surely Americans will not longer be fooled by another shuf- 
fling of the soiled New Deal deck with its red aces, deuces, 
knaves, and jokers. This time we will not be blinded by a spuri- 
ous “bipartisan” appointment of Achesonites whose nominal 
membership in the Republican Party does not conceal an ardent 
"me-too-ism.” Americans surely will not, for instance, tolerate 
actors like tweedle-dum John Foster Dulles who goes along with 
tweedle-dee Acheson right down the line even to such an act as 
inviting Hiss to New York to become President of the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace, of which Dulles was the new 
Chairman of the Board. It might have been expected that with 
Hiss away, his trouble in Washington would blow over — but it 
did not. 

The reference to high-placed War Department officials whose 
loyalty or judgment has been questioned by some of their fellow 
Americans brings us to an evaluation of the reception given in all 
parts of this nation to General MacArthur after his dismissal by 
President Truman in April, 1951. It seems that General Mac- 
Arthurs ovation was due not to his five stars, for half a dozen 
generals and admirals have similar rank, but to his being a man 
of unquestioned integrity, unquestioned patriotism, and — above 
all — to his being avowedly a Christian. 

Long before the spring crisis of 1931 General MacArthur was 
again and again featured in the obscure religious papers of 
many Christian denominations as a man who asked for more 
Christian missionaries for Japan and for New Testaments to give 
his soldiers. MacArthurs devout Christianity was jeered in some 
quarters but it made a lasting impression on that silent majority 
of Americans who have been deeply wounded by the venality 
and treason of men in high places. 

"I was privileged in Tokyo,” wrote John Gunther in The Rid- 
dle of MacArthur , “to read through tire whole file of MacArtliur's 
communications and pronouncements since the occupation be- 
gan, and many of these touch, at least indirectly, on religious 
themes. He constantly associates Christianity with both democ- 
racy and patriotism.” 

Cleaning the Augean Stables 

MacArthur is a Protestant, but to the editor of the Brooklyn 
Tablet, a Catholic periodical, he wrote as follows: 

Through daily contact with our American men and women 
who are here engaged in the reshaping of Japans future, there 
are penetrating into the Japanese mind the noble influences 
which find their origin and their inspiration in the American 
home. These influences are rapidly bearing fruit, and apart 
from the great numbers who are coming formally to embrace 
the Christian faith, a whole population is coming to under- 
stand, practice and cherish its underlying principles and 

To some people this language of General MacArthurs may 
seem outmoded or antiquarian. The writings of the more pub- 
licized American theologians — darlings of leftist book-reviews — 
may indicate that the clear water of classical Christianity is dry- 
ing up in a desert of experimental sociology, psychiatry, and 
institutionalized ethical culture. But such is not the case. The 
heart of America is still Christian in its felt need of redemption 
and salvation as well as in its fervent belief in the Resurrection. 

Christianity in the historical, or classical, sense is closely allied 
with the founding and growth of America. It was the common 
adherence to some form of Christianity which made it “possible 
to develop some degree of national unity out of the heterogeneous 
nationalities represented among the colonists” of early America 
(The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United 
States, p. 231). This acceptance of the tenets of Christianity as 
die basis of our American society gave our people a body of 
shared ideals — a universally accepted code of conduct. Firmly 
rooted in Christianity was our conception of honor, both per- 
sonal and national. It was not until a dominant number of 
powerful preachers and church executives got tired of the 
church’s foundation-stone, charity, and abandoned it to welfare 
agencies — it was not until these same leaders transferred their 
loyalty from the risen Christ to a new sort of leftist cult stemming 
from national councils and conferences — that public morality 
declined to its present state in America. But the people in the 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

leftist- infiltrated churches have by no means strayed as far as 
their leaders from the mainstream of Christianity. The really 
Christian people in all denominations wish to see restored in 
America the set of values, the pattern of conduct, the code of 
honor, which constitute and unify Western civilization and 
which once made ours a great and united country. It was pre- 
cisely to this starved sense of spiritual unity, this desire to recover 
a lost spiritual heritage, that MacArthur the Christian made an 
unconscious appeal which burst forth into an enthusiasm never 
before seen in our country. 

And so, when the Augean stables of our government are 
cleaned out, we must, in the words of George Washington, “put 
only Americans on guard.” We must have as secretaries of State 
and Defense men who will go down through their list of assistant 
secretaries, counsellors, division chiefs, and so on, and remove 
all persons under any suspicion of Communism whether by ideo- 
logical expression, association, or what not While danger stalks 
the world, we should entrust the destiny of our beloved country 
to those and only those who can say with no reservation: 

“Tms is my own, my native land!” 

Chapter IX 


In the closing speech of his play King John, Shakespeare 
makes a character say: 

This England never did, nor never shall 
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror 
But when it first did help to wound itself. 

In June, 1951, before the members of the Texas Legislature 
in Austin, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur made a 
speech of which the above quotation might have been the text 
He said in part: 

I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not 
so much because of any potential threat from without, but 
because of the insidious forces working from within which, 
opposed to all of our great traditions, have gravely weak- 
ened the structure and tone of our American way of life. 

The “insidious forces working from within" and “opposed to 
all our great traditions” are the first and most serious challenge 
that faces America. There are those who seek to corrupt our 
youth that they may rule them. There are those who seek to 
destroy our unity by stirring up antagonism among the various 
Christian denominations. There are those who, in one way or 
another, intrude their stooges into many of our high military and 
executive offices. Effective in any evil purpose is the current 
menace of censorship, analyzed in Chapter V, and the even 
greater threatened menace of a far more drastic censorship im- 
posed not by those of alien origin and sympathy within our 
country, but by alien-dominated agencies of the United Nations. 




The Iron Curtain Over America 

Moreover, and even more significant, it must not be forgotten 
that an undigested mass in the “body politic,” an ideologically 
hostile “nation within the nation,” has through history proved 
the spearhead of conquerors. The alien dictators of Rumania, 
Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern European countries have 
been discussed in Chapter II. Throughout history members of 
an unassimilated minority have repeatedly been used as indi- 
vidual spies — as when the Parthians used Jews in Rome as 
spies while the Romans used Jews in Parthia for the same pur- 
pose. Recent instances of espionage — discussed above in Chap- 
ter II — involved the theft of atomic secrets from both Canada 
and the United States. 

In addition to working individually for the enemies of his 
country, the unassimilated alien has often worked collectively. 

According to A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modem 
Times, by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 
1909), Persians in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the 
Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here 
is Mr. Parkcs’s account: 

There is no doubt that the . . . Jews aided the Persians 
with all the men they could muster, and that the help they 
gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands 
a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews 
are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. 
cit., p. 81). 

Mr. Parkes concludes that it “would not be surprising if the 
accusation were true.” 

Another famous betrayal of a country by its Jewish minor- 
ity took place in Spain. In his History of the Jews, already 
referred to, Professor Graetz gives an account (Vol. Ill, p. 109) 
of the coming of alien conquerors into Spain, a country which 
had been organized by the Visigoths, a race closely akin in blood 
to the English, Swedes, Germans, and other peoples of tire North 
Sea area: 

The Jews of Africa, who at various times had emigrated 

America Can Still Be Free 

thither from Spain, and their unlucky co-religionists of the 
Peninsula, made common cause with the Mahometan con- 
queror, Tank, who brought over from Africa into Andalusia 
an army eager for the fray. After the battle of Xeres (July, 
711), and the death of I. — .eric, the last of the Visigothic 
kings, the victorious Arabs pushed onward, and were every- 
where supported by the Jews. In every city that they con- 
quered, the Moslem generals were able to leave but a small 
garrison of their own troops, as they had need of every man 
for the subjection of the country; they therefore confided 
them to the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews, 
who but lately had been serfs, now became the masters of 
the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga, and many others. 
When Tarik appeared before the capital, Toledo, he found it 
occupied by a small garrison only, the nobles and clergy 
having found safety in flight. While the Christians were in 
church, praying for the safety of their country and religion, 
the Jews flung open the gates to the victorious Arabs (Palm 
Sunday, 712), receiving them with acclamations, and thus 
avenged themselves for the many miseries which had befallen 
them in the course of a century since the time of Reccared 
and Sisebut. The capital also was entrusted by Tarik to the 
custody of the Jews, while he pushed on in pursuit of the 
cowardly Visigoths, who had sought safety in flight, for the 
purpose of recovering from them the treasure which they 
had carried off. 

Finally when Musa Ibn-Nosair. the Governor of Africa, 
brought a second army into Spain and conquered other cities, 
be also delivered them into the custody of the Jews. 

The "miseries” which prompted the Jews of Spain to treason 
are explained by Professor Graetz. King Sisebut was annoy- 
ingly determined to convert them to Christianity, and among the 
miseries” inflicted by King Reccared “the most oppressive of 
all was the restraint touching the possession of slaves. Hence- 
forward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor 
to accept them as presents" ( History of the Jews, Vol. Ill, 
p. 46). The newly Christianized East German Goths of Spain 
were noted for their chastity, piety, and tolerance ( Encyc . Brit., 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

Vol. X, p. 551), but the latter quality apparently was not in- 
clusive enough to allow the wealthy alien minority to own the 
coveted bodies of fair-haired girls and young men. 

There is a lesson for America in the solicitude of the Visigoths 
for their young. Americans of native stock should rouse them- 
selves from their half-century of lethargic indifference and should 
study the set-up which permits the enslavement of young peo- 
ple’s minds by forces hostile to Western Christian civilization. 
Our boys and girls are propagandized constantly by books, 
periodicals, motion pictures, radio, television, and advertisements; 
and from some of the things that they read and see and hear 
they are influenced toward a degraded standard of personal con- 
duct, an indifference to the traditional doctrines of Christianity, 
and a sympathy for Marxism or Communism. American parents 
must evolve and make successful a positive — not a negative — 
counter-movement in favor of the mores of Western civilization, 
or that civilization will fall. It is well known that the Commu- 
nists expend their greatest effort at capturing the young; but in 
tliis most vital of all fields those Americans who are presttmably 
anti-Communistic have — at least up to the summer of 1952 — 
made so little effort that it may well be described as none at all. 

Since President Franklin Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet 
masters of Russia (November 16, 1933), the United Stales has 
consistently helped to “wound itself” by catering to lire “insidious 
forces working from within" (Chapters II and III), who are 
“opposed to all our great traditions” of Christian civilization. 
These powerful “forces” have been welcomed to our shores, 
have become rich and influential, and nothing has been expected 
of them beyond a pro-American patriotism rather than a hostile 
nationalist separatism. In spite of all kindnesses, they have, how- 
ever, stubbornly adhered to their purposes and have indeed 
“gravely weakened the structure and tone of our American way 
of life.” But tlie wealth of our land and the vitality of our people 
are both so great that the trap has not yet been finally sprung; 
the noose has not yet been fatally drawn. Despite the hostile 
aliens who exert power in Washington; despite the aid and 
succor given them by uninformed, hired, or subverted persons 

America Can Still Be Free 

of native stock; despite the work of the "romantics, bums, and 
enemy agents” (Captain Michael Fielding, speech before Public 
Affairs Luncheon Club, Dallas, Texas, March 19, 1951) who 
have directed our foreign policy in recent years, there is a chance 
for the survival of America. A great country can be conquered 
only if it is inwardly rotten. We can still be free, if we wish. 

Basic moves, as indicated in preceding chapters, are diree: 

We must (i) lift the iron-curtain of censorship (Chapter V) 
which, not satisfied with falsifying the news of the hour, has 
gone back into past centuries to mutilate the classics of our 
literature and to exclude from our school histories such vital 
and significant facts as those presented in Chapters I and II 
and above in this chapter. A start toward this goal can be 
made by exercising some of the Constitution-guaranteed rights 
discussed in Chapter VIII, and by subscribing to periodicals 
with a firm record of opposing Communism. The reading of 
periodicals and books friendly to the American tradition not 
only encourages and strengthens the publishers of such works 
but makes the reader of them a better informed and therefore 
a more effective instrument in the great cause of saving Western 
Christian civilization. 

We must (ii) begin in the spirit of humane Christian civili- 
zation to evolve some method of preventing our unassimilable 
mass of aliens and alien-minded people from exercising in this 
country a power over our culture and our lives out of all pro- 
portion to the number of the minority, and to prevent this 
minority from shaping, against the general national interest, our 
policies on such vital matters as war and immigration. The 
American Legion seems to be working toward leadership in this 
vital matter. The movement should be supported by other vet- 
erans’ organizations, women’s clubs, luncheon clubs, and other 
groups favorable to the survival of America. In the great effort, 
no individual should fail; for there is no such tiling as activity 
by a group, a club, or even a legion, except as a product of the 
devoted zeal of one or more individuals. 

Our danger from internal sources hostile to our civilization 
was the subject of a warning by General MacArthur in his 

198 The Iron Curtain Over America 

speech before the Massachusetts Legislature on July 25, 1951: 

This evil force, with neither spiritual base nor moral 
standard, rallies the abnormal and sub-normal elements 
among our citizenry and applies internal pressure against all 
things we hold decent and all things that we hold right — 
the type of pressure which has caused many Christian nations 
abroad to fall and their own cherished freedoms to languish 
in the shackles of complete suppression. 

As it has happened there it can happen here. Our need 
for patriotic fervor and religious devotion was never more 
impelling. There can be no compromise with atheistic com- 
munism— no half way in the preservation of freedom and 
religion. It must be all or nothing. 

We must unite in the high purpose that the liberties 
etched upon the design of our life by our forefathers be un- 
impaired and that we maintain the moral courage and spir- 
itual leadership to preserve inviolate that bulwark of all 
freedom, our Christian faith. 

We must (iii) effect a genuine clean-up of our government 
(Chapter VIII) removing not only all those who can be proved 
to be traitors, but also all those whose policies have for stupidity 
or bad judgment been inimical to the interests of our country. 

Following the removal of Acheson — and Marshall, who re- 
signed in September, 1951 — and any successor appointees tarred 
by the same stick, and following the removal of the cohorts of 
alien-minded, indifferent, or stupid people in their hierarchies 
and in other government agencies and departments, the chances 
of a third world-wide war will be materially lessened, because 
our most likely attacker relies on such people, directly or indi- 
rectly as the case may be, to perform or permit acts of espion- 
age and sabotage. The chances of a world-wide war will be 
further lessened if four relatively inexpensive steps arc taken by 
our government. Even if general war breaks out, a successful 
outcome will be more likely if the steps are taken — as far as 
possible under such circumstances as may then exist. 

The word inexpensive is purposely used. It is high time that 
our government count costs, for, as Lenin himself said, a nation 


America Can Still Be Free 


can spend itself into economic collapse as surely as it can ruin 
itself by a wrong foreign policy. 

The one horrible fact of World War II was the killing of 
256,330 American men and the serious wounding of so many 
others. But the cost in money is also important to the safety 
of America. According to Life magazine’s History of World 
War II, that war cost us $350,000,000,000 (Christopher Notes , 
No. 33, March, 1951). Also — and it is to be hoped that there is 
some duplication — the "Aid Extended to AH Foreign Countries 
by the U. S.” from July 1, 1940 to June 30, 1950 was $80,147,000,- 
000 (Office of Foreign Transactions, Department of Commerce). 
This staggering figure is for money spent. The “costs from July 1, 
1940, down to and including current proposals for such overseas 
assistance add up to $104 billions,” according to Senator Hugh 
Butler of Nebraska, a member of the Finance Committee, in a 
speech in the Senate on June 1, 1951 ( Human Events, June 0, 
1951). See also “In Washington It’s Waste As Usual” by Stanley 
High ( The Readers Digest, July, 1951). Titus Stalin’s confidence 
in and reliance on America’s collapse from orgiastic spending as 
explicitly stated in his great March 10, 1939 address to the 18th 
Congress of the Communist Party could be prophetic. 

Let us turn then to the four relatively inexpensive steps — in 
addition to the preservation, or restoration, of our financial in- 
tegrity— for saving America. These steps— which can be taken 
only after the clean-up of our departments of State and Defense 
and our Executive agencies — are (a) the frustration of the plans 
of Communists actually in the United States; (b) the adoption 
of a foreign policy, diplomatically and defensively, which is 
based not on a political party’s need of votes, but on the safety 
of America; (c) a study of the United Nations Organization and 
a decision that the American people can trust; and (d) a factual 
recognition of and exploitation of the cleavage between the Soviet 
government and the Russian people. A final sub-chapter (e) 
constitutes a brief conclusion to The Iron Curtain Over America. 


For our reconstituted, or rededicated, government the first 
step, in both immediacy and importance, is to act against Com- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

munism not in Tierra del Fuego or Tristan da Cunha, but in the 
United States. Known Communists in this country must, under 
our laws, be at once apprehended and either put under surveil- 
lance or deported; and the independent Soviet secret police force, 
believed by some authorities to be in this country in numbers 
estimated at 4,000, must be ferreted out. Unless these actions are 
taken, all overseas adventures against Communism are t corse 
than folly, because our best troops will be away from home when 
the Soviet gives word to the 43,217 Communists known to the 
to the 4,000, and incidentally to the 472,170 liangers-on 
(figures based on J. Edgar Hoover’s estimated ten collaborators 
for each actual member) to destroy our transportation and com- 
munications systems and our industrial potential. If the strike of 
a few railroad switchmen can virtually paralyze the country, what 
can be expected from a suddenly unmasked Red army of half a 
million, many of them slyly working among the labor unions 
engaged in strategic work, often unknown to the leaders of those 
unions? (See “100 Things You Should Know About Communism 
and Labor,” 10£, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.). 
The menace is not hypothetical. “Apparently there’s no business 
like spy business in this country. For, according to F.B.I. Director 
J. Edgar Hoover, the bureau shortly will investigate 90,000 sep- 
arate instances of threats to America’s internal security. Last year 
his agents probed into 74,799 such cases” (Victor Riesel’s syndi- 
cated column, April 3, 1952). 

Director Hoover of the F.B.I. is aware of the danger. In an 
interview (UP dispatch, March 18, 1951) he said: “The Com- 
munists are dedicated to the overthrow of the American system 
of government . . . the deshuction of strategic industries — that 
is the Communist blueprint of violent attack.” Secretary-Treas- 
urer George Meanv of the American Federation of Labor bears 
similar testimony (“The Last Five Years,” by George Meany, 
A. F. of L. Bldg., Washington 1, D. C., 1951): 

... It is the Communists who have made the ranks of 
labor their principal field of activity. It is the Communists 
who are hypocritically waging their entire unholy fight under 
the flag of world labor. It is the Communists whose strategy 

America Can Still Be Free 

dictates that they must above all capture the trade unions 
before they can seize power in any country ( p. 2 ) . 

If anyone, after reading the above statements by the two 
men in America best situated to know, is still inclined to think 
our internal danger from the infiltration of Soviet Communism 
into labor a fantasy, he should read “Stalinists Still Seeking Con- 
trol of Labor in Strategic Industries” in the February 24, 1951, 
issue of the Saturday Evening Post. According to this source: 

. . . The communist fifth column in the American labor 
movement has cut its losses and has completed its regroup- 
ing. It now claims to have 300,000 to 400,000 followers. 
Aside from Bridges’ own International Longshoremen’s and 
Warehousemen’s Union, some of the working-alliance mem- 
bers are in such strategic spots as the United Electrical 
Workers; Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers; United Public 
Workers; and the American Communications Association. 


For a full analysis of the strength, the methods, and the 
weapons of the Communists in a country they plan to capture, 
see The Front is Everywhere: Militant Communism in Action, 
by William R. Kintner (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 
Oklahoma, 1950, §3.75). A West Point graduate, a General Staff 
Corps colonel in the Military Intilligence Service in the later 
phase of World War II, and a Doctor of Philosophy in the field 
in which he writes, Colonel Kintner is rarely qualified for his 
effectively accomplished task. His bibliography is a good guide 
for speakers, writers, and others, who require fuller facts on 
Communism. Another essential background work is "Lenin, 
Trotsky, Stalin: Soviet Concepts of War” in Makers of Modern 
Strategy, edited by Edward Mead Earle (Princeton University 
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1943). 

The ratios of actual Communists and other disgruntled ele- 
ments of the total population in the Russia of 1917 and the 
America of the middle of the twentieth century have often been 
compared and are strikingly similar. As of 1952, the American 
position is stronger than that of the Russian government of 1917 
in that we have not just sufFered a major military defeat. Our posi- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

tion is weaker, however, in the extent to which our administration 
is not only tolerant of but infiltrated with persons hostile to our 
traditions. Our action against U. S. Communists must then in- 
clude those in government. If inclined to doubt that communists 
arc intrenched in government, do not forget that the C.I.O., 
prior to the Tydings investigation, expelled its United Public 
Workers union (Abram Flaxer, president) for being Communist- 
dominated! And note the name “United Public Workers” in the 
Post list quoted above! Once more, let it be stressed that 
the removal of Communists from their strategic spots in the 
government must take precedence over everything else, for gov- 
ernment Communists are not only able to steal secret papers 
and to stand poised for sabotage; they are also often in positions 
where they prevent action against Communists outside the gov- 
ernment. For instance, Mr. Meany testified (op. cit., p. 3) that* 
some of the anti-Communist success of the American Federation 
of Labor has been accomplished "despite opposition even from 
some of our government agencies and departments!” 

If any reader is still inclined to doubt the essential validity — 
irrespective of proof in a court of law with judge or judges likely 
to have been appointed by "We need those votes" Roosevelt or 
“Red Herring” Truman — of the charges of Senator Joseph Mc- 
Carthy of Wisconsin, arch-enemy of the Tydings whitewash, or 
is inclined to question the judgment of the C.I.O. in its expul- 
sion of government Communists, he should ponder the test for- 
mulated by Christ in ancient Palestine: "Ye shall know them 
by their fruits” (St. Matthew , VII, 16). There have been large 
and poisonous harvests from our government-intrenched Com- 
munists. The most deadly, including atomic espionage and pro- 
Soviet foreign policy, have been analyzed above (Chapters II, 
IV, VI). More recent was the successful Communist Daily 
Worker campaign for the removal of General MacArthur — n 
campaign culminating in an across-the-page headline on April 9, 
1951, just before General MacArthur was dismissed from his 
command in Korea, and from his responsibilities in Japan. The 
pressure of Communists was not the only pressure upon the 
President for the dismissal of General MacArthur. Stooges, fellow 

America Can Still Be Free 

travelers, and dupes helped. The significance of the Communist 
pressure cannot be doubted, however, by anyone whose perusal 
of the Daily Worker has shown how many times Communist 
demands have foreshadowed Executive action (see “The Kremlin 
War on Douglas MacArthur," by Congressman Daniel A. Reed, 
of New York, National Republic, January, 1952), 

Here follow some indications of recent fruitful Communist 
activity within our government — indications which should be 
studied in full by any who are still doubters. Late in 1948 an 
article by Constantine Brown was headlined in the Washington 
Evening Star as follows: “Top Secret Documents Known to Reds 
Often Before U. S. Officials Saw Them." "Army Still Busy Kick- 
ing Out Reds Who Got In During the War ” the Washington 
Timcs-Herald headlined on February 11, 1950, the article, by 
Willard Edwards, giving details on Communist-held positions 
in the “orientation of youthful American soldiers.” "When Are 
We Going to Stop Helping Russia Arm?” was asked by O. K. 
Armstrong and Frederic Sondem, Jr., in the December, 1950, 
Readers Digest . "How U. S. Dollars Armed Russia” is tire title 
of an article by Congressman Robert B. Chiperfield of Illinois, 
a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee ( National 
Republic, 511 Eleventh St., N. W., Washington 7, D. C., Feb- 
ruary, 1951). See the Congressional Record, or write to the sen- 
ators concerned, for an account of the successful efforts of Sen- 
ator Herbert F. O’Conor of Maryland and Senator John J. 
Williams of Delaware in breaking up the scandal of our offi- 
cially permitting — and by our blockade actually aiding — the 
furnishing of supplies to Chinese Communists when their gov- 
ernment troops were at the time killing our young men in Korea! 
See also the full “Text of House Un-American Activities Com- 
mittee’s Report on Espionage in the Government” ( New York 
Times, December 31, 1948; or, from your Congressman). 

If existing laws against Communism — including the Internal 
Security law whose passage over the President’s veto was dis- 
cussed in Chapter VIII — are inadequate, appropriate new laws 
should be recommended by the Department of Justice for deal- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

ing with the Communist menace within the United States. They 
will surely be promptly passed by the Congress. Advance ap- 
proval of the laws by the Department of Justice is desirable, so 
that no flaw’s in the laws’ coverage can later be alleged by an 
enforcement official. If the Justice Department will not at once 
provide the text of a needed law, the judiciary committees of 
the tw’o Houses are amply able to do so, and should proceed 
on their own. If any administration, present or future, flouts the 
anti-subversive laws passed by the Congress, the Congress should 
take the necessary action — including impeachment, if other 
efforts fail — to secure the enforcement of the laws. 

Unless action is soon taken against U. S. Communists (de- 
spite any “We need those votes” considerations), our whole radar 
defense and our bomb shelters are wasted money and effort, for 
there is no way of surely preventing the importation of atom 
bombs or unassembled elements of them across some point on 
our 53,904-mile detailed tidal shoreline (exclusive of Alaska, 
whose detailed tidal shoreline furnishes another 33,904 miles) 
except to clean out possible recipients of tire bombs whether 
operating in government agencies or elsewhere in the United 
States. Wc would by no means be the first country to take steps 
against Communism. Progress in this direction in Spain and Can- 
ada is elsewhere mentioned. Also, "the Communist Party has been 
outlawed in the Middle East countries" except in “Israel” (Alfred 
M. Lilienthal, Hurnan Events, August 2, 1950). 

As a conclusion to this section of the last chapter of The 
Iron Curtain Over America, let it be stressed that American 
people in every city block, in every rural village, and on every 
farm must be vigilant in the matter of opposing Communism 
and in persuading the government to take effective measures 
against it. “There has been a tremendous amount of false in- 
formation disseminated in the world as to the alleged advan- 
tages of Communism," said General Wedemeyer in his summa- 
tion of his recommendations to tire MacArthur Committee of the 
Senate (U. S. News ancl World Report, June 22, 1951), “People 
all over the world are told that Communism is really the people’s 
revolution and that anyone opposing it is a reactionary or a 

America Can Still Be Free 

Fascist or imperialist.” Because of the prominence of Jews in 
Communism from the Communist Manifesto (1848) to the 
atomic espionage trials (1950, 1951), anti-Communist activity is 
also frequently referred to erroneously as anti-Semitic ( see Chap- 
ters II, III, and V), This propaganda-spread view that Com- 
munism is “all right” and that those who oppose it are anti- 
Semitic, or “reactionaries” of some sort, may be circulated in 
your community by an actual member of the Communist Party. 
More likely, it is voiced by a deluded teacher, preacher, or other 
person who has believed the subtle but lying propaganda that 
has been furnished him. Be careful not to hurt the ninety per 
cent or more of American-minded teachers ( Educational Guard- 
ian, 1 Maiden Lane, New York 7, New York, July, 1951, p. 2) 
and a probably similar majority of preachers; but use your in- 
fluence to frustrate the evil intent of the “tw'o or five or ten per 
cent of subverters.” Draw your inspiration from Christ’s words, 
“For tliis cause came I into the world” (St. John , XVIII, 37) and 
let the adverse situation in your community inspire you to make 
counter efforts for Western Christian civilization. Never forget 
that the basic conflict in the world today is not between the 
Russian people and the American people but between Com- 
munism and Christianity. Work then, also, for the friendly co- 
operation of all Christian denominations in our great struggle 
for the survival of the Christian West. Divided we falll 


In the second place, our foreign military policy must be en- 
tirely separated from the question of minority votes in the United 
States and must be based on the facts of the world as known 
by our best military scholars and strategists. That such has not 
been the case since 1933 has been shown above (Chapter VI) 
in the analysis of our official attitudes toward China, Palestine, 
and Germany. Additional testimony of the utmost authority is 
furnished by General Bonner Fellers. In reviewing Admiral 
Ellis M. Zacharias’s book Behind Closed Doors (Putnam’s, New 
York, $3.75), the former intelligence officer General Fellers 
states: “ Behind Closed Doors reveals that we have embarked 


The Iron Curtain Over America 


America Can Still Be Free 


upon a military program which our leaders know to be unsound, 
yet they are unwilling to tell the American people the truthl’* 
(The Freeman , October 30, 1950.) 

This statement prompts a mention of the fact that a colonelcy 
is the highest rank attainable in and from the United States 
Army (similarly, a captaincy in the Navy). By a regulation in- 
herited from the days when the total number of general officers 
was about twenty-five, all appointments to general rank from 
the one-star Brigadier to the five-star General of the Army are 
made by the President of the United States (so also for the 
corresponding ranks in the Navy). It is obvious that merit is 
a factor in the choice of generals and admirals as field and fleet 
commanders. Merit is surely a factor also for many staff posi- 
tions of star-wearing rank. Just as surely, however, the factor 
of "political dependability” also enters into the selection of those 
high-ranking staff officers who make policy and arc allowed to 
express opinions. "The conclusion is inescapable that our top 
military Commanders today are muzzled. They do not dare 
to differ with the civilian side of military questions for fear of 
being removed or demoted” (from “Louis Johnson’s Story is 
Startling," by David Lawrence, The Evening Star , Washington, 
June 18, 1951). In view of such testimony derived from a for- 
mer Secretary of Defense, it must be concluded that it was to 
a large extent a waste of time for the Senate to summon generals 
and admirals close to the throne in Washington in the year 1951 
for an analysis of Truman-Acheson policies. The following pas- 
sage from the great speech of General MacArthur before the 
Massachusetts Legislature (July 25, 1951) is highly pertinent: 

Men of significant stature in national affairs appear to 
cower before the threat of reprisal if the truth be expressed 
in criticism of those in higher public authority. 

For example, I find in existence a new and dangerous 
concept that the members of our armed forces owe primary 
allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise 
the authority of the executive branch of Government, rather 
than to the country and its Constitution which they are 
sworn to defend. 

If the Congress wants to lcam other aspects of a strategic 
or logistic situation besides the administration’s viewpoint, it 
must summon not the agents and implementers of the administra- 
tion’s policy, but non-political generals, staff officers below star 
rank, and retired officers. Regular, National Guard, and Reserve. 
Competent officers in such categories arc not hard to find. There 
are also a number of other patriotic Americans with diplomatic 
experience. In an address over three major networks (April 13, 
1951) Representative Joseph W. Martin, Jr., Republican leader 
in the House, named seven generals including Kniger, Whitney, 
Chennault, and Wedemeyer; seven admrials including King, 
Halsey, Yamell, and Denfeld; four Marine Corps generals, and 
ten diplomats including Hurley — all of the twenty-eight expert 
in one way or another on the Far East and none of them close 
to the Washington throne where Far East policy decisions have 
come from the plans and thinking of persons such as John Carter 
Vincent, John S. Service, Owen Lattimore, Philip C. Jessup, 
Lauclilin Currie, Dean G. Acheson, and their fellow travelers! 

No attempt can be here made to analyze fully the complex 
structure of our foreign relations. Nowhere are any guesses 
made as to future national policy. No attempt is made to enter 
into details in the fields of logistics and manpower, and no sug- 
gestions will be made on the tactics or strategy of a particular 
operation, for such decisions arc the responsibility of informed 
commanders on the scene. 

A few words are indicated, however, on the two allied sub- 
jects of gasoline and distance from a potential enemy as factors 
in the defense of the West. 

This matter of gasoline is most significant in our choice of 
areas for massing troops against a possible thrust from the Soviet. 
Of the world’s supply, it was estimated in 1950 by petroleum 
experts that the U. S. and friendly nations controlled 9395, 
whereas the Soviet controlled 795. The fighting of a war on the 
Soviet perimeter (Korea or Germany) would appear thus as an 
arrangement — whether so intended or not — to give the Soviet 
leaders a set-up in which their limited supply of gasoline and 
oil would not be an obstacle. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

Beyond question, the Soviet maintains at all times sufficient 
gasoline reserves for a sudden thrust into close-at-hand West 
Germany. But the Soviet almost certainly does not have enough 
gasoline for conquering, for instance, a properly armed Spain 
which, because of its distance from Soviet supply sources and 
because of its water and mountain barriers, has in the age of 
guided missiles superseded Britain as the fortress of Europe. 

This fact, inherent in the rise of the significance of the air 
arm, prompts an analysis of the Roosevelt and Truman attitudes 
toward Spain. Though Franklin Roosevelt tolerated benignly 
the bitter anti-Franco statements of his Communist and other 
leftist supporters, he maintained more or less under cover a 
friendly working arrangement by which during World War II 
we derived from Spain many advantages superior to those ac- 
corded by Spain to the Axis countries. Adequate details of 
Spain's help to America in World War II can be had in a con- 
vincing article, “Why Not a Sensible Policy Toward Spain?” by 
Congressman Dewey Short of Missouri ( Reader’s Digest, May, 

1949). The reader interested in still further details should con- 
sult the book, Wartime Mission in Spain (The Macmillan Com- 
pany, New York) by Professor Carlton J. H. Hayes, who served 
as our Ambassador to Spain from May, 1942, to March, 1945. 

To one of the many ways in which Spain helped us, the author f 

of The Iron Curtain Over America can bear personal testimony. 

When our aviators flew over France they were instructed, if shot 
down, to make their way to Spain. If Franco had been pro-IIitlcr, 
he would have returned them to the Germans. If he had been 
neutral, lie would have interned them. If friendly, he would have 
turned them over to the United States to give our leaders their 
priceless intelligence information and to fly again, That is pre- 
cisely what Franco did; and it was to the office of this writer, 
then Chief of the Interview Section in the Military Intelligence 
Service, that a representative number of these fliers reported 
when flown to Washington via Lisbon from friendly Spain. 

The principal trouble with Spain, from the point of view of 
our influential Leftists, seems to be that there are no visible 

America Can Still Be Free 


Communists in that country and no Marxists imbedded in the 
Spanish government. Back in 1943 (February 21) Franco wrote 
as follows to Sir Samuel Honrc, British Ambassador to Spain: 
"Our alarm at Russian advances is common not only to neutral 
nations, but also to all those people in Europe who have not yet 
lost their sensibilities and their realization of the peril. , . Com- 
munism is an enormous menace to the whole world and now 
that it is sustained by the victorious armies of a great country 
all those not blind must wake up.” More on the subject can be 
found in Frank Waldrop’s article, "What Fools We Mortals Be,” 
in the Washington Times-IIcrald for April 17, 1948. 

It is not surprising perhaps that, just as there are no visible 
Communists in Spain, an anti-Spanish policy has long been one 
of the main above-board activities of U. S. Communists and fel- 
low travelers. Solicitude for leftist votes has, as a corollary, in- 
fluenced our policy toward Spain. For America's unjustified ten- 
dency "to treat Spain as a leper,” not from “any action on the 
part of Spain in the past or the present” but for the “winning of 
electoral votes,” see “Britain and an Amcrican-Spanish Pact,” by 
Cyril Falls, Chichele Professor of the History of War in Oxford 
University (77ie Illustrated London News, August 4, 1951). 

The following anti-Franco organizations have been listed as 
Communist by the U. S. Attorney General (see the Senate re- 
port, Communist Activities Among Aliens and National Groups , 
Part III, p. A10): 

Abraham Lincoln Brigade 

Action Committee to Free Spain Now 

Comite Coordinator Pro Republica Espanola 

North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy 

North American Spanish Aid Committee 

United Spanish Aid Committee 

Another cause of the anti-Spanish propaganda of American 
leftists is the fact that Spain — aware of History’s bloody record 
of the treason of ideologically unassimilated minorities — lias not 
complicated its internal problems by admitting hordes of so- 
called “refugees” from Eastern Europe. 


The Iron Curtain Ooer America 

The same world forces which blocked our resumption of full 
diplomatic relations with Spain have prevented the UN from 
inviting Spain to be a member of that organization. 

Whether Spain is in or out of that ill-begotten and seemingly 
expiring organization may matter very little, but Spain in any 
defense of the West matters decisively. “In allying itself with 
Spain the United States would exchange a militarily hopeless 
position on the continent of Europe for a very strong one” 
(Hoffman Nickerson: “Spain, the Indispensable Ally,” The 
Freeman, November 19, 1951). The way for friendship with 
Spain was at last opened when the Senate, despite President 
Truman’s bitter opposition, approved in August, 1950, a loan 
to that country, and was further cleared on November 4, 

1950, when the UN, though refusing to lift the “ban against 
Spain’s full entry into the United Nations,” did vote to allow 
Spanish representation on certain “specialized agencies such as 
tile world health and postal organizations” (AP dispatch, Dallas 
Morning News, November 5, 1950). As to the loan authorized 
by Congress in August, 1950, it was not until June 22, 1951, that 
the “White House and State Department authorized the Export- 
Import Bank to let Spain buy wheat and other consumer goods 
out of the $62,500,000 Spanish loan voted by Congress last year” 
( Washington Post, June 23, 1951). 

In his testimony to the combined Armed Services and For- 
eign Relations Committees of the Senate on May 24, 1951 (AP 
dispatch from Washington) Chief of Staff General Omar Bradley 
admitted that "from a military point of view” the Joint Chiefs 
would like to have Spain on our side. Finally, the clamor of the 
public and the attitude of the military prevailed and in July, 

1951, the United States, to the accompaniment of a chorus of 
abuse from the Socialist governments of Britain and France 
(New York Times, July 17, 1951), began official conversations 
with Spain on mutual defense. On August 20, 1951, a “military 
survey team,” which was “composed of all three aimed services,” 
left Washington for Spain (New York Times, August 21, 1951). 
This move toward friendly relations for the mutual advantage of 

America Can S till Be Free 


the two countries not only has great potential value in the field 
of defense; it has, if possible, an even greater diplomatic value, 
for Spain is the Mother Country for all of Latin America from 
the Rio Grande to Cape Horn with the sole exception of Brazil. 
Spain is, moreover, of all European countries, the closest in sym- 
pathy with the Moslem world. Each year, for instance, it wel- 
comes to Cordoba and Toledo thousands of Moslem pilgrims. 
Peace between Moslem and Christian was a century-old fact 
until ended by the acts of the Truman administration on behalf 
of "Israel." It will be a great achievement if our resumption of 
relations with Spain leads to a renewal of friendly relations with 
tire Moslem world. We must be sure, however, that our military 
men in Spain will not be accompanied by State Department 
and executive agency vivandieres, peddling the dirty wares of 
subversion and Communism (Human Events, August 8, 1951). 

With the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean, and the lofty 
Pyrenees Mountains as barriers; under the sheltering arm of dis- 
tance; and above all with no visible internal Communists or 
Marxists to sabotage our efforts, we can — if our national defense 
so requires — safely equip Spain’s eighteen well-disciplined divi- 
sions, can develop airfields unapproachable by hostile ground 
troops, and in the deep inlets and harbors of Spain can secure 
safe ports for our navy and our merchant fleet. Our strengthening 
of Spain, second only to our keeping financially solvent and 
curbing Communists in this country, would undoubtedly be a 
very' great factor in preventing the Soviet leaders from launching 
an all-out war. Knowing that with distant Pyrenees-guarded and 
American-armed Spain against them, they could not finally win, 
they almost certainly would not begin. 

Our strengthening of Spain’s army, potentially the best in 
Europe outside of Communist lands, would not only have per $e 
a powerful military value; it would also give an electric feeling 
of safety to the really anti-Communist elements in other Western 
European countries. Such near-at-hand reassurance of visible 
strength is sorely needed in France, for that country since the 
close of World War II has suffered from the grave internal men- 
ace of approximately 5,000,000 known Communists. In the gen- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

America Can Still Be Free 


eral election of members of the French National Assembly on 
June 17, 1931, the Soviet-sponsored Comintmisf Party polled 
more than a fourth of all votes cast (New \ ork Times, June 19, 
1951), and remained the largest single political party in France. 
Moreover, Communist leaders dominate labor in crucial French 
industries, 'in France, the Communists arc still the dominant 
factor in the trade unions” ("The Last Five Years,” by George 
Meany, American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C., p. 
11). See also the heavily documented article, “French Commu- 
nism,” by Andre La Guerre in Life, January 29, 1951. With Com- 
munists so powerful and so ready for sabotage or for actual 
rebellion, the France of 1952 must be regarded as of limited 
value as an ally. As said above, however, the dependability of 
France in the defense of the West would be enhanced by United 
States aid to the military forces of anti-Communist Spain. 

With Spain armed, and with the Socialist government of 
Britain thrown out by Mr. Churchills Conservative Party in the 
election of October 23, 1951, the spirit of Europe may revive. If 
not, it is too much to expect America to save Europe forever, for 
“if 250 million people in Western Europe, with industry far 
larger than that of Russia, cannot find a way to get together and 
to build a basis for defense on land, then something fundamental 
may be wrong with Western Europe (U. S. News and World 
Report, June 22, 1951, p. 10). Perhaps the “wrong” is with our 
policy -at least largely. For instance, deep in our policy and 
irrespective of our official utterances, “Germany is written off as 
an ally” to avoid “political liability in New York (Frank C. Hani- 
ghen in Human Events, February 7, 1951). 

Spain, with its national barriers and the strategic position of 
its territory astride the Strait of Gibraltar, could become one 
anchor of an oil-and-distance defense arc. By their location and 
by their anti-Communist ideology, the Moslem nations of the 
Middle East are the other end of this potential crescent of safety. 
Friendship with these nations would, like friendship with Spain, 
be a very great factor in preventing a third world-wide war. 

Among nations on the Soviet periphery, Turkey, mountainous 
and military-minded, is pre-eminently strong. Perhaps because 

it would be an effective ally, it long received the cold shoulder 
from our State Department. Suddenly, however, in the autumn 
of 1951, Turkey, along with Greece, was given a status similar to 
that of the nations of Western Europe (not, however, including 
Spain) in the proposed mutual defense against Communism. 
This apparently reluctant change of policy by our government 
toward Greece and Turkey seems — like the sending of a military 
mission to Spain — to have grown unquestionably from public 
clamor in America as shown in the newspapers, especially in let- 
ters from the people, as heard on radio from the patriotic com- 
mentators, and as reflected in polls of public opinion. This suc- 
cess of the people in changing the national policy should hearten 
the average citizen to newer efforts in guiding his country to 
sound policies. It is most essential for every individual to remem- 
ber that every great achievement is the result of a multitude of 
small efforts. 

Between Spain and Turkey, the Mediterranean islands — Ma- 
jorca and Minorca, Corsica and Sardinia, Sicily and Malta, Crete 
and Cyprus — are well deployed and well fortified by nature. Per- 
haps the United States should make some of them into impreg- 
nable bases by friendly agreement with their authorities. The 
incontestable value of an island fortress is shown by Malta’s sur- 
viving the ordeal of Axis bombing in World War II as well as by 
Hitler's capture of Crete, an operation so costly in time and 
materiel that it was a factor in the German failure before Moscow 
in Uie following December. 

In the Eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus (visited 
by the author) is potentially a very strong bastion. In relation- 
ship to the Dardanelles, the Soviet oil fields, and the strategic 
Aleppo-Baghdad-Cairo triangle, Cyprus’s water-girt site is admir- 
able. Since its mountain ranges reach a height of more than 
6,000 feet, and are located like giant breastworks defending a 
broad interior plain, the island might well become the location 
of underground hangars and landing fields for a great air fortress. 
Others of the islands listed above offer advantages of one sort or 
another to air or other forces. 

South of the Mediterranean’s necklace of islands, lies Africa, 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

the ultimate key to the success or failure of the Western World 
in preventing an aggressive move against Europe. It is air power 
in Africa, in the great stretch of hills and plains from Morocco 
to Egypt, that might well be the major deterrent of any hostile 
move in Europe or in the Middle East by the Soviet Union. “Air 
power offers the only effective counter-measure against Russian 
occupation of the Middle East. The deeper the Red Army moves 
into tills priceless strategic area, the more its supply lines can be 
disrupted by air strikes” (“Africa and Our Security,” by General 
Bonner Fellers, The Freeman, August 13, 1951). In his valuable 
article, General Fellers states further that a "small, highly trained 
and mobile ground force, with adequate air protection and sup- 
port " can defend African air bases, which in turn could prevent 
the crossing of tire Mediterranean by hostile forces in dangerous 

Tire Moslem lands of the Middle East and North Africa (as 
sources of oil and as bases for long range bombers) should, by a 
proper diplomatic approach, be pulled positively and quickly into 
the United States defense picture. Barring new inventions not yet 
in sight, and barring disguised aid from our government (such 
as Truman and Achcson gave the Chinese Communists in the 
Strait of Formosa), the Soviet Union cannot win a world war 
without the oil of the Middle East. Soviet delay in making 
overt moves in that theater may well have been determined by 
gasoline reserves insufficient for the venture. 

The Soviet squeeze upon Iran was initiated at the Tehran 
Conference, where Stalin, who is said to be unwilling to leave 
his territory, entertained our rapidly declining President in the 
Soviet Embassy in a grandiose gesture insulting alike to the 
Iranians and to our staff in that country. Stalin’s alleged reason 
that his embassy was the only safe spot was in truth an astute 
face-raising gesture before the peoples of Asia, for he displayed 
Roosevelt, the symbolic Man of the West, held in virtual protec- 
tive custody or house arrest by the Man of the East. 

Details of the dinner in the Soviet Embassy to which Stalin 
invited “Father and the P. M.” are given by General Elliott 
Roosevelt in As He Sau> It (pp. 1S8, 1S9). Stalin proposed that 

America Can Still Be Free 


Cermany’s “war criminals” be disposed of by firing squads “as 
fast as we capture them, all of them, and there must be at least 
fifty thousand of them.” 

According to General Roosevelt, the proposal shocked Prime 
Minister Churchill, who sprang quickly to his feet. 

Any such attitude,’ he said, 'is wholly contrary to our Brit- 
ish sense of justicel The British people will never stand for such 
mass murder ... no one, Nazi or no, shall be summarily dealt 
with before a firing squad, without a proper legal trial. . .HI’” 

The impasse was resolved by the U. S. President: “ 'Clearly 
there must be some sort of compromise, he said, according to 
liis son. Perhaps we could say that instead of summarily exe- 
cuting fifty thousand war criminals, we should settle on a smaller 
number. Shall we say forty-nine thousand five hundred?’ “ 

It was in this way, prophetic of the crime of Nuremberg, 
that President Roosevelt, unquestionably very tired and probably 
already too ill to know the full import of his words and acts, 
threw away the last vestiges of our government’s respect for law, 
and for the Western Christian tradition. In return, our President 
got nothing but the flattering of the Leftists around him and the 
gratification of a whim of his decline which was to make 
Churchill scowl and Stalin smile! What a spectacle of surrender 
in tlie very capital of strategically important and liistoric Persia! 

Over all Stalin’s triumphs and Churchill’s defeats at Tehran 
was the shadow of the derricks of tire Iranian oil fields. "Should 
the Abadan refineries be shut down or their output flow in an- 
other direction, the results would be felt around the world. 
These refineries are the largest in the world, processing 550,000 
barrels a day (monthly Newsletter of Representative Frances 
Bolton of Ohio, June, 1951). And what a sorry figure America 
has played in this vital oil area from Tehran to 19511 "Our Gov- 
ernment’s Deplorable Performance in Iran Has Contributed to a 
Great Disaster” was the sub-title of a Life editorial, “How to 
Lose a World (May 21, 1951), on Achcson’s policy of doing 
nothing except let the pieces settle” after the expected disaster 
in the world's greatest oil-producing area. In Iran or in an adja- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

cent area, the Soviet may find it necessary to strike for her gaso- 
line and lubricants before any major attempts can be surely suc- 
cessful elsewhere. 

The well-known leftism in our State Department — as indi- 
cated in many ways, especially by the carefully documented tes- 
timony of Harold Stassen; and the C.I.O.’s expulsion of the 
United Public Workers Union — and the early predilection of 
Prime Minister Attlee (1945-1951) for Communism raise the in- 
evitable fear that the oil crisis in Iran, while publicly deplored 
by Britain and America, may well have been engineered by the 
very American and British government officials who then shed 
crocodile tears at the oils probable loss to the Wcstl 

A major world fact in the early 1950’s was the fall of British 
prestige in the Middle East, and the drawing of the Soviet into 
the resultant vacuum. The Attlee government’s protest on Iranian 
oil nationalization commanded no respect anywhere, for the 
Iranians were copying the home program of the Socialist gov- 
ernment of Britain! Britain’s humiliation in Iran was made graver 
by the long threatened but never carried out dispatch of some 
4,500 paratroopers to the oil fields — a gesture which was said 
to have stemmed from the Socialist Defense Minister at that 
time, the Jewish statesman, Mr. Emanuel Shinwcll (UP dispatch 
from Tehran, May 25, 1951). Whether or not Mr. Churchill’s 
government (October, 1951) can save the situation is for the 
future to show. There was no comfort for non-Communists in 
his speech before the two houses of the U. S. Congress on January 
17, 1952 — a speech which called not for peace with justice to 
the Moslems of the Middle East but for U. S. troopsl 

The moral power of America as a mediator, like that of 
Britain, has moved toward zero. Nearly a million destitute Mos- 
lem refugees from Palestine — who have in their veins more of 
the blood of Biblical peoples than any other race in the world 
today — are straggling here and there in the Middle East or are 
in displaced persons’ camps, and are not silent about the pres- 
ence of American officers (Chapter VI, above) commanding the 
troops which drove them from their homes. For details on these 

America Can Still Be Free 


hopeless refugees sent to wandering and starving by our policy, 
see Alfred M. Lilienthal’s “Storm Clouds Over the Middle East," 
Human Events , August 2, 1950. The evil we did in Palestine may 
be our nemesis in Iran and in Egypt! The truth is that because 
of Americas sponsoring of bloody little “Israel’’ -and Britain’s 
falling in line— the Moslem Middle East resents the presence 
of the previously respected and admired Anglo-Saxon powers 
(Mr. Churchills speech). e 

Moreover, the Zionists are not quiescent. The summer of 1951 
saw clashes on the “Israeli” frontiers and the exposure of Zionist 
schemes in other parts of the Middle East Here is a sample: 

Baghdad, Iraq, June 18 (AP)— Police said today they 
had discovered large quantities of weapons and explosives 
in Izra Daoud Synagogue. Military sources estimated it was 
enough to dynamite all Baghdad. 

Tin's was the latest discovery reported by police, who said 
yesterday they found a large store of machine guns, bombs, 
and ammunition in the former home of a prominent Jew. 

After details of other discoveries the dispatch concludes, 
“Police said the ammunition was stored by the Baghdad Zionist 
Society, which was described as a branch of the World Zionist 
Organization" (New York Times, June 19, 1951). 

In spite of our deserved low reputation in the Moslem world, 
American counter-moves of some sort to save Middle East oil 
and the Suez Canal are imperative. The proper approach is 
obvious, but will our government make it? “The Moslems, and 
those allied with them religiously and sympathetically, compose 
almost one-half of the world’s people who control almost one- 
half of the worlds land area. We infuriated them when we 
helped to drive a million Arabs from their native lands in the 
Middle East ( Newsletter of Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas, 
February 1, 1951). "The recapture of the friendship of 400 000- 
000 Moslems by the United States, and its retention, may prove 
the deciding factor in preserving world peace” (statement of 
Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas in the House of Representa- 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

lives, June 12, 1951, as recorded in the Congressional Record). 
In the Washington Timcs-Iicrald (Sept. 2S, 1951), Senator Ma- 
lone of Nevada also called attention to the sound sense and 
strategic advantage of having the Moslem world on our side. 

The recapture of friendship with the Moslem is not only a 
question of acts of justice on our part but is tied to the question 
of absolutely vital oil reserves. The oil of the Middle East is 
essential to our preventing World War III or to our winning it. 
In World War II we had gasoline rationing with the oil of the 
Middle East on our side. What would we do in another war, far 
moro dependent on gasoline, with the Middle East oil on the 
other side? And what would we do if the West should lose the 
Suez Canal? 

Tire first move to prevent such a disaster — after cleaning out 
our State Department as the American Legion demanded by a 
vote of 2,8S1 to 131 at its National Convention in Miami (Octo- 
ber, 1951) — should be to send a completely new slate of Ameri- 
can diplomats to the Moslem nations from Egypt and Yemen to 
Iraq and Iran. These new diplomats should be unsullied, square- 
shooting Americans and should have instructions to announce a 
changed policy which is long overdue. The present State Depart- 
ment, stained with past errors, could not succeed even if it should 
wish to succeed. 

A changed policy implemented by new officials would almost 
certainly be received by the Moslem world with cordiality and 
gratitude, for until the Israel grab was furthered in this country 
America was throughout the Middle East the least disliked and 
least feared great foreign power. “At the close of the Second 
World War the Near East was very friendly to the United States 
and her allies,” said Ambassador Kamil Bey Abdul Rahim of 
Egypt ( Congressional Record, June 12, 1951) in an address de- 
livered at Princeton University on June 2, 1951. By 1932, how- 
ever, “a spirit of resentment and even revolt against the Western 
democracies” was sweeping through the Middle East. For the 
unfortunate fact of our having lost our friends the Ambassador 
finds the reason in the “policy of the West”; 

The Palestine question is an outstanding example of this 

America Can Still Be Free 

policy. Everyone knows that the serious injustice inflicted 
upon tlic Arabs in Palestine has alienated them and under- 
mined the stability of the area. 

The West's continued political and financial support of 
the Zionists in Palestine is not helping the relations with 
the Near East, nor is it strengthening the forces which are 
fighting communism there. 

By being again honorable in our dealing with the Moslem 
nations and by helping them, with a supply of long-range 
bombers or otherwise, to defend their oil, for which we are pay- 
ing them good money, and will continue to pay them good money, 
wc could quickly create a situation under which the Soviet can 
not hope to conquer the Middle East. Thus lacking oil, the Soviet 
could not hope to conquer the world. It must not be forgotten, 
too, that apart from oil the Middle East has great strategic sig- 
nificance. Israel and the adjacent Moslem lands are a vestibule 
which leads to Europe, to Asia, and to Africa. 

In addition to building, primarily by honorable conduct and 
secondarily by thoughtfully planned assistance, a strength cres- 
cent from Spain through the Mediterranean and North Africa to 
the Middle East, other significant agenda include a solution to 
our present problem in Korea and plans for tire safety of Japan, 
Formosa, and the Philippines. But as Senator Jenner of Indiana 
has pointed out, “We cannot have peace in Asia if the negotia- 
tions are carried on by tlie men of Yalta" ( Human Events, May 
30, 1951). Then, there is Alaska, one of whose islands, Little 
Diomede, is only three miles from and in sight of an island, Big 
Diomede, belonging to Russia. Of the Soviet’s two Far Eastern 
fronts, one is the hinterland of Vladivostok and the other is an 
armed quadrilateral opposite Nome, Alaska. Here, according to 
the military critic, Hanson Baldwin, is a garrison which “prob- 
ably numbers more than 200,000 men” (see article and map, 
New 1 ork Times, March 15, 1949). No specific suggestions are 
here made, but it seems obvious that the defense of Alaska 
should receive priority over at least some of our more far-flung 
global ventures. 


220 The Iron Curtain Over America 

In tlio conclusion of this section, a warning is in order — a 
warning that should be heeded in all of America’s planning at 
home and abroad. In any efforts at helping the world, the pri- 
mary help we can give is to remain solvent. A bankrupt America 
would be worse than useless to its allies. Foreign military aid 

should be granted, therefore, with two associated principles. We 
should cease mere political bureaucracy-building in this country 
and cut to a reasonable minimum our government’s home spend- 
ing. We should insist that foreign governments receiving our aid 
should also throw their own energies and resources into the 

common cause. 

Tim re is no more dangerous fallacy than the general belief 
that America is excessively rich. Our natural resources arc vari- 
ously estimated at being from six per cent to ten per cent of the 
world’s total. These slender resources are being more rapidly 
depleted than those of any other power. Our national debt also 
is colossal beyond anything known in other parts of the world. 
Can a spendthrift who is heavily in debt be properly called a 
wealthy man? By what yardstick then are wc a “rich” nation? 

Fortunately a few Americans in high places are awake to the 
danger of a valueless American dollar. General MacArthur, for 
instance, in his speech before the Massachusetts Legislature 
gave the following warning: 

The free world’s one great hope for survival now rests 
upon the maintaining and preserving of our own strength. 
Continue to dissipate it and that one hope is dead. If the 
American people would pass on the standard of life and 
the heritage of opportunity they themselves have enjoyed 
to their children and their children’s children they should 
ask their representatives in government: 

“What is the plan for the easing of the tax burden upon 
us? What is die plan for bringing to a halt this inflationary 
movement which is progressively and inexorably decreasing 
tho purchasing power of our currency, nullifying the pro- 
tection of our insurance provisions, and reducing those of 
fixed income to hardship and despair?” 




America Can Still Be Free 


An early duty of a completely reconstituted Department of 
State will be to advise the Congress and the American people 
on the United Nations. 

Launched in 1945 when our government’s mania for giving 
everything to the Soviet was at its peak, the United Nations got 
off to an unfortunate start. Our most influential representative at 
San Francisco, “The Secretary-General of the United Nations 
Conference on International Organization,” was none other than 
Alger Hiss. It is not surprising, then, that United States leftists, 
from pink to vermilion, found homes in the various cubicles of 
the new organization. According to a personal statement to the 
author bv the late Robert Watt, American Federation of Labor 
leader and authority on international affairs, all members except 
the chairman of one twenty-one-member U. S. contingent to the 
permanent UN staff were known Communists or fellow trav- 
elers. These people and others of the same sort are for the most 
part still in UN harness. 

Moreover, and as is to he expected, the work of our own dele- 
gation cannot be impartially assessed as being favorable to the 
interest, or even the survival, of the United States as a nation. 
Very dangerous to us, for instance, is our wanton meddling into 
the intcmal affairs of other nations by such a program as the one 
we call land reform. "The United States will make land reform in 
Asia, Africa, and Latin America a main plank in its platform for 
world economic development. At the appropriate time, the United 
States delegation [to the UN] will introduce a comprehensive 
resolution to the Economic and Social Council of the United 
Nations” (dispatch, August I, by Michael L. Hoffman from 
Geneva to the New York Times , August 2, 1951). Can anyone 
with any sense think that our collection of leftists, etc., in the 
UN really know how to reform the economic and social structure 
of three continents? Is not the whole scheme an attack on the 
sovereignty of the nations whose land we mean to “reform”? Does 
the scheme not appear to have been concocted mainly if not 



The Iron Curtain Over America 

solely to establish a precedent which will allow Communists and 
other Marxists to “reform” land ownership in the United States? 

Meanwhile, certain international bodies have not delayed in 
making their plans for influencing the foreign and also the inter- 
nal policies of the United States. For instance, at the World 
Jewish Conference which met in Geneva, Switzerland, on Sep- 
tember 10, 1951, “far and away the most important matter” was 
said to be an opposition to "the resurgence of Germany as a lead- 
ing independent power” (Ncio York Times , September 10, 1951). 
The special dispatch to the New York Times continues as follows: 

'We are strongly and firmly opposed to the early eman- 
cipation of Germany from Allied control and to German 
rearmament,” Dr. Maurice Perlzweig of New York, who rep- 
resents Western Hemisphere Jewish communities, said today. 

Leaders expect to formulate and send to the Foreign 
Ministers of Western powers the specific views of the world 
Jewish community on the German question. 

The above quotation shows an international effort to shape 
foreign policy. At the same “Congress,” attention was also given 
to exerting influence within America: 

. . . Dr. Goldman said non-Zionists must learn to con- 
tribute to some Zionist programs with which they did not 

"Non-Zionists should not be unhappy if some money is 
used for Halutziuth [pioneering] training in the United 
States," he told a press conference. Zionists would be unable 
to accept any demand that no such training he undertaken, 
ho added. 

How would outside power force its will upon the United 
States? The day-by-day method is to exert economic pressure 
and to propagandize the people by the control of the media 
which shape public opinion (Chapter V, above). At least one 
other way, however, has actually been rehearsed. Full details 



America Can Still Be Free 

are given by John Jay Daly in an article “U,N. Seizes, Rules 
American Cities” in the magazine, National Republic (September, 
1951). As described by Mr. Daly, troops flying the United Na- 
tions flag — a blue rectangle similar to the blue rectangle of the 
State of “Israel” — took over Culver City, Huntington Park, 
Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Compton, California. The military 
“specialists” took over the government in a surprise move, “throw- 
ing the mayor of the city in jail and locking up the chief of police 
. . . and the chief of the fire department. . . . The citizens, by a 
proclamation posted on the front oE City Hall, were warned that 
the area had been taken over by tire armed forces of the United 
Nations.” If inclined to the view that this United Nations opera- 
tion — even though performed by U. S. troops — is without sig- 
nificance, the reader should recall that the United States has only 
one-sixtieth of the voting power in the Assembly of the United 

The present location of the UN headquarters not only within 
the United States but in our most alien-infested great city would 
make easy any outside interference intended to break down local 
sovereignty in this country — especially if large numbers of troops 
of native stock are overseas and if our own “specialist” contin- 
gents in the UN force should be composed of newcomers to the 
country. Such troops might conceivably be selected in quantity 
under a future UN rule that its troops should speak more than 
one language. Such a rule, which on its face might appear reason- 
able, would limit American troops operating for the UN almost 
exclusively to those who are foreign-bom or sons of foreign-bom 
parents. This is true bccaue few soldiers of old American stock 
speak any foreign languages, whereas refugees and other immi- 
grants and tlieir immediate descendants usually speak two — 
English, at least of a sort, and the language of the area from 
which they or their parents came. 

As lias been repeatedly stated on the floors of Congress, 
among others by Senator Pat McCarran on April 25, 1949 (see 
the government pamphlet, “Communist Activities Among Aliens 
and National Groups,” p. Al), the presence of the UN within 
the United States has the actual — not merely hypothetical — 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

disadvantage of admitting to our borders under diplomatic im- 
munity a continuing stream of new espionage personnel who are 
able to contact directly the members of their already established 
networks within the country. 

There are other signs that the UN organization is “useless, 
as John T. Flynn has described it in a Liberty network broadcast 
(November, 1951). The formulation of the North Atlantic De- 
fense Treaty or Security Alliance in 1949 was a virtual admission 
that the UN was dead as an influence for preventing major ag- 
gression. America’s strong-fisted forcing of unwilling nations to 
vote for the admission of “Israel” dealt the UN a blow as effec- 
tive as Russia’s vetoes. Another problem to give Americans pause 
is the dangerous wording and possibly even more dangerous in- 
terpretation of some articles in the UN Covenant. There is even 
a serious question of a complete destruction of our sovereignty 
over our own land, not only by interpretations of UN articles by 
UN officials (see The United Nations — Action for Peace, by 
Marie and Louis Zocca, p. 56), but by judicial decisions of leftist- 
minded courts in this country. Thus in the case of Sei Fujii vs, the 
State of California “Justice Emmet H. Wilson decided that an 
existing law of a state is unenforceable because of the United 
Nations Charter” (“These Days,” by George Sokolsky, Washing- 
ton Times-Herald and other papers, March 9, 1951), Lastly, and 
of great importance, is the consistent UN tendency to let the 
United States, with one vote in 60, bear not merely the principal 
burden of the organization but almost all of the burden. Thus in 
the UN-sponsored operation in Korea, America furnished “over 
90& of the dead and injured” (broadcast by Ex-President Herbert 
Hoover, December 20, 1950) among UN troops. South Koreans 
being excluded from the figures as South Korea is not a UN 
member. And as the months passed thereafter, the ratio of Ameri- 
can casualties continued proportionately high. By the middle of 
the summer of 1951 more of our men had been killed and 
wounded in Korea than in the Revolutionary War, the War of 
1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish -American War, com- 
bined! It is thus seen that the United Nations organization has 
failed miserably in what should be its main function — namely 

America Can Still Be Free 


the prevention or stopping of war. 

In view of the above entries on the loss side of the ledger, 
what has the United Nations accomplished? A United States 
representative, Mr. Harding Bancroft, furnished the answer in a 
spring of 1951 broadcast (NBC, “The United Nations Is My 
Beat”). The three successes of the Security Council cited by Mr. 
Bancroft were achieved in Palestine, the Netherlands East Indies, 
and Kashmir. With what yardstick does Mr. Bancroft measure 
success? Details cannot be given here, but surely the aggregate 
of the results in the three areas cited cannot be regarded as suc- 
cessful by anyone sympathetic with either Western Christian 
civilization or Moslem civilization! 

Patriotic Americans should be warned, finally, against spuri- 
ous attempts to draw parallels between the United States Con- 
stitution and United Nations regulations. The Constitution, with 
its first ten amendments, was designed specifically to curb the 
power of the Federal government and to safeguard the rights of 
states and individuals. On the other hand, the United Nations 
appears to have the goal of destroying many of the sovereign 
rights of the member nations and of putting individuals in jeop- 
ardy everywhere — particularly in the United States. 

In view of all these matters, the American public is entitled 
to advice on the UN from a new clean leadership in the Depart- 
ment of State. The Augean stables of the UN are so foul that the 
removal of the filth from the present organization might be too 
difficult. Perhaps the best move would be to adjourn sine die. 
Then, like-minded nations on our side, including the Moslem 
bloc — which a clean State Department would surely treat hon- 
orably— might work out an agreement advantageous to the 
safety and sovereignty of each other. Cleared of the booby traps, 
barbed wire, poisonous potions, and bad companions of the pres- 
ent organization, the new international body might achieve work 
of great value on behalf of world peace. In the U. S. delegation 
to the new organization, we should include Americans only — 
and no Achesonians or Hissites from the old. In any case the 
Congress needs and the people deserve a full report on the 
United Nations from a State Department which they can trust. 


The Iron Curtain Ooer Americo 


Lastly, but very important, the clean -out of our government 
will give us a powerful propaganda weapon against the masters 
of the Russian people. Wc must not forget the iron curtain over 
America (Chapter V) which has blacked out the truth that Rus- 
sia (Chapter II) was founded by the Russ, who were men of the 
West, men from Scandinavia, whence sprang the whole Nordic 
race, including the great majority of all Western Europeans. 
Even in Spain and northern Italy the people are largely de- 
scended from Gothic ancestors who first passed from Sweden to 
the Baltic island of Gotland (or Gothland, hence their name) 
and then onward to their conquest and settlement of Southern 
and Western lands. Consequently, we should never speak in a 
derogatory manner of Russia or Russians. “Each time we attack 
‘Russia’ or ‘the Russians’ when we mean the Bolshevik hierarchy, 
or speak contemptuously of ‘Asiatic hordes,’ or identify world 
communism as a ‘Slav menace,’ we are providing grist for the 
Kremlin mills. Our press and pronouncements are fine-combed 
in Moscow for quotations” (from "Acheson’s Gift to Stalin,” The 
Frecrnan, August 27, 1951), Should we or should we not send 
special messages to the Esthonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians 
to whose independence President Franklin Roosevelt — in one of 
his moods — committed himself? Should we or should we not 
direct special appeals to White Russians and to Ukrainians? 
These latter people have plenty of reasons for hating the rulers 
of Russia; for a rebellion in January, 1918, by Jews who did not 
want to be cut off from the Jews of Moscow and Leningrad was 
a principal factor in the loss of the Ukraine's old dream of inde- 
pendence (A History of the Ukraine, Hrushcvsky, p. 539 and 
passim). Decisions on the nature of our propaganda to the people 
behind the Iron Curtain should be made by patriotic Americans 
familiar with the current intelligence estimates on Soviet-held 
peoples, and not by persons addicted to the ideology of Com- 
munism and concerned for minority votes! 

We must never forget, moreover, that the Russian people are 
at heart Christian. They were converted even as they emerged 

America Can S till Be Free 


onto the stage of civilized modem statehood, and Christianity is 
in their tradition — as it is in ours. 

We must finally not forget that leaders in Russia since 1917 
are not patriotic Russians but are a hated coalition of renegade 
Russians with the remnants of Russia's old territorial and ideo- 
logical enemy, the Judaizcd Khazars, who for centuries refused 
to be assimilated either with the Russian people or with Western 
Christian civilization. 

In view of the facts of his ton,', from which this book has tom 
the curtain of censorship, it is reasonable to assume that the true 
Russian people are restive and bitter under the yoke and the 
goading of alien and Iscariot rule. To this almost axiomatic 
assumption, there is much testimony. In his book The Choice, 
Boris Shubb states that in Russia “There is no true loyalty to 
Stalin-Bcria-Malenkov in any significant segment of the party, 
the state, the army, the police, or the people.” In The Freeman 
(November 13, 1950) Rodney Gilbert says in an article “Plan 
for Counter- Action”: “Finally, there is the Soviet Russian home 
front, where we probahly have a bigger force on our side than 
all of the Western world could muster.” According to the Catho~ 
lie World (January, 1941): “The Russian mind being Christian 
bears no resemblance to the official mind of the Politburo.” Like- 
wise, David Lawrence ( U. S. News and World Report, Decem- 
ber 25, 1950) says: “We must first designate our real enemies. 
Our real enemies are not the peoples of Soviet Russia or the 
peoples of the so-called ‘Iron Curtain Countries’.” In Human 
Events (March 28, 1951), the Reader’s Digest Editor Eugene 
Lyons quotes the current Saturday Evening Post headline “Our 
enemies are the Red Tyrants not their slaves” and with much 
documentation, as might be expected from one who was six years 
a foreign correspondent in the Soviet Union, reaches the con- 
clusion that “the overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples 
hate their rulers and dream of liberation from the Red yoke.” 
So, finally. General Fellers testifies thus in his pamphlet “Thought 
War Against the Kremlin” (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 
25 cents): “Russia, like the small nations under its heel, is in 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

effect an occupied country.” General Fellers recommends that 
our leaders should not "blame the Russian people for the peace- 
wrecking tactics of the Kremlin clique," but should make it clear 
that we "share the aspirations of the Russians for freedom .” The 
general scoffs at the idea that such propaganda is ineffective: 
“From wartime results we know that effective broadcasts, though 
heard only by thousands, percolate to the millions. Countries 
denied freedom of press and speech tend to become huge whis- 
pering galleries; suppressed facts and ideas often carry farther 
than the official propaganda.” 

What an opportunity for all of our propaganda agencies, in- 
cluding the “Voice of America"! And yet there is testimony to 
the fact that our State Department has steadily refused sugges- 
tions that its broadcasts direct propaganda not against the Rus- 
sian people but against their enslaving leaders. The “Voice,” 
which is not heard in this country — at least not by the general 
public — is said to be in large part an unconvincing if not repel- 
ling air mosaic of American frivolities presented as an introduc- 
tion to American "culture” — all to no purpose, except perhaps 
to preempt from service to this country a great potential propa- 
ganda weapon. The “Voice” appears also to have scant regard 
for the truth, For instance, a CTPS dispatch from Tokyo on April 
13 (Washington Timcs-Uerald , April 14, 1951) reported as fol- 

A distorted version of world reaction to Gen. MacArthur’s 
removal is being broadcast by the Voice of America, con- 
trolled by the State department, a comparison with inde- 
pendent reports showed today. 

"Voice” listeners here got an impression of virtually 
unanimous approval of President Truman’s action. 

Sometimes the “Voice” is said actually to state to the en- 
slaved Russian people that the United States has no interest in 
changing “the government or social structure of the Soviet 
Union.” For carefully documented details, see the feature article, 
“Voice of America Makes Anti-Red Russians Distrust U. S.; 


America Can S till Be Free 


Serves Soviet Interests” in the Williams Intelligence Summary for 
June, 1951 (P. O. Box 868, Santa Ana, California, 25£ per copy, 
$3.00 per year). Finally, it should be noted that in the summer 
of 1951, there was secret testimony to Senate Committees indi- 
cating “that Communist sympathizers have infiltrated the State 
Department’s Voice of America Programs” (AP dispatch in Rich- 
mond Times-Dispatch, July 10, 1951). 

The apparently worse than useless "Voice of America” could, 
under a cleaned-up State Department, become quickly useful 
and powerful. We could use it to tell the Russian people that we 
know they were for centuries in the fold of Christian civilization 
and that we look forward to welcoming them back. We could say 
to the Russian people that we have nothing against them and 
have under our laws removed from our government those leaders 
who for self-perpetuation in office or for other cause wanted a 
big foreign war. Wc could then invite Russian bearers of the 
broadcast to give thought to a similar step in their country. Such 
broadcasting, if it did not actually bring about the overthrow of 
the present rulers, would almost certainly give them enough con- 
cern to prevent their starting a war. Such broadcasts also would 
pave the way to assistance from inside Russia in tire tragic event 
that war should come. Broadcasts of the new type should begin 
quickly, for the Soviet leaders have a thought censorship, even 
as we have, and our task will be increasingly difficult as each 
month sees the death of older people who will know the truth 
of our broadcasts from personal prc-1917 experience. 


The patriotic people of America should not lose hope. They 
should proceed with boldness, and joy in the outcome, for Right 
is on their side. Moreover, they are a great majority, and such a 
majority can make its will prevail any time it ceases to lick the 
boots of its captors. 

One point of encouragement lies in the fact that things are 
not quite as bad as they were. Most patriotic people feel that 
their country is in the lowest depths in the early fifties. Condi- 
tions were even worse, however, in 1944, and seem worse now 
only because the pro-American element in the country is pre- 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

vailing to the extent, at least, of turning on a little light in 
dark places. 

Unquestionably, 1944 was the most dangerous year for 

America. Our President and the civil and military coterie about 


him were busily tossing our victory to the Soviet Union. In 
November the dying President was elected by a frank and open 
coalition of the Democratic and Communist parties. The pil- 
grimage of homage and surrender to Stalin at Yalta (February, 
1945) was being prepared. The darkest day was the black thir- 
tieth of December when the Communists were paid off by the 
termination of regulations which had kept them out of the Mili- 
tary Intelligence Service. The United States seemed dying of the 
world epidemic of Red fever. 

But on January 3, 1945, our country rallied. The new Con- 
gress had barely assembled when Mr. Sabath of Illinois moved 
that the rules of the expiring Seventy-Eighth Congress be the 
rules of the new Seventy-Ninth Congress. Thereupon, Congress- 
man John Elliott Rankin, Democrat, of Mississippi, sprang to his 
feet, and moved as an amendment that the expiring temporary 
Committee on Un-American Activities be made a permanent 
Committee of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Rankin explained the function of the proposed perma- 
nent committee as follows: 

The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole 
or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to 
time investigations of (1) the extent, character, and objects 
of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 

(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and 
un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign 
countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle 
of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, 
and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would 
aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation. 

In support of his amendment to the Rules of the House, Mr. 
Rankin said: 

The Dies committee, or the Committee on Un-American 

America Can Be Free 


Activities, was created in 1938. It has done a marvelous 
work in the face of all the criticism that has been hurled at 
Its chairman and at its members. I submit that during 
these trying times the Committee on Un-American Activities 
has performed a duty second to none ever performed by 
any committee of this House. 

Today, when our boys arc fighting to preserve American 
Institutions, I submit it is no time to destroy the records of 
that committee, it is no time to relax our vigilance. We 
should carry on in the regular way and keep this committee 
intact, and above all things, save those records. 

Congressman Karl Mundt, Republican, of South Dakota, rose 
to voice liis approval of the Rankin amendment. There was 
maneuvering against the proposal by Congressman Marcantonio 
of New York, Congressman Sabath of Illinois, and other congress- 
men of similar views, but Mr, Rankin, a skillful parliamentarian, 
forced a vote. By 208 to 186, with 40 not voting, the Rankin 
amendment was adopted and the Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities became a permanent Committee of the House of Repre- 
sentatives (all details and quotations are from Congressional Rec- 
ord, House, January 3, 1945, pages 10-15 — pages which deserve 
framing in photostat, if the original is not available, for display 
in every school building and veterans’ clubroom in America). 

The American Communists and fellow-travelers were stunned. 
Apart from violence, however, there was nothing they could do. 
Moves made as “feelers” showed them they could get nowhere 
with their hoped-for uprising in the American South, almost all 
of whose people were patriotic Americans. Also, except for two 
widely separated and quickly dwindling incidents, they got no- 
where with their plans for a revolt in the army. Despite its suc- 
cess at Yalta, and despite its continued influence with the Ameri- 
can Administration, the Soviet moved more cautiously. The 
Rankin amendment gave the United States of America a chance 
to survive as a nation under its Constitution. Is it then to be 
wondered at that Mr. Rankin has been subject to bitter reprisals 
ever since by Communists and fellow-travelers and their dupes? 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

America Can Still Be Free 


Though the Rankin amendment gave America its chance to 
live, the recovery has been slow and there have been many re* 
lapses. This book, The Iron Curtain Over America, has diagnosed 
our condition in the mid-ccntury and has suggested remedies, the 
first of which must be a clcaning-out of the subversives in the 
executive departments and agencies in Washington. The degree 
of infestation by Communists, and those indilfercnt to or friendly 
to Communism, in our bureaucracy in Washington is stagger- 
ing beyond belief. Details are increasingly available to those 
who study the publications of the congressional committees 
concerned with the problem. "Communist Propaganda Activities 
in the United States," a report published early in 1952 by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, deals princi- 
pally with Communist propaganda carried on xoilh the help of 
the Department of State atid the Department of Justice of the 
United States! The report (pp. v-ix) climaxes a stinging rebuke 
of the State Departments pro-Communist maneuvers with this 

The policy of the Department of State is in effect an 

administrative nullification of an established law. 

One result of the "nullification” of existing law was the dis- 
semination in the United States in 1950 of more than 1,000,000 
Communist books, magazines, and other printed documents, 2,275 
Soviet films, and 25,080 phonograph records (pp. 24-25). By a 
special Department of Justice ruling these were dispatched indi- 
vidually "to state institutions, universities or colleges, or to profes- 
sors or other individuals,” with no statement required on or with 
any of the parcels that they were sent out for propaganda pur- 
poses or had emanated from the Soviet Union or some other Com- 
munist government! Is this what the American people want? 
It is what they have been getting in Washington. 

Following a removal of top leaders and their personal hench- 
men, there will be no reason for despair even for the depart- 
ments of State and Defense. In the Department of State there 
are many whose records suggest treason, but there are also many 

workers of low and medium rank whose tenacious patriotism has 
in a number of instances prevented a sell-out of our country. 
These people will rally to a new leadership. The same is true in 
the Department of Defense. Except for a mere handful, com- 
mitted to wrong-doing to cover their old sins of omission or 
commission, our generals and admirals, like all oilier ranks, have 
the good of their country at heart. 

Disciplined by tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian 
authority, our General Staff officers pursue a hated policy from 
winch there is for them no escape, for on one hand they do not 
wish to denounce the administration and on the other they see 
no end good for America in the strategically unsound moves they 
are ordered to make. Below the appointive ranks, the civilian 
personnel, both men and women, of such strategic agencies as 
Military Intelligence are with few exceptions devoted and loyal 
and competent Americans. With our top state and defense lead- 
ership changed, our policy shaped by patriots, our working level 
Department of Defense staff will be able to furnish a strategically 
sound program for the defense of this country, which must stand 
not only for us and our children but as the fortress of Western 
Christian civilization. 

Meanwhile, patriotic State Department personnel face a 
ghastly dilemma. If they remain, they are likely to be thought of 
as endorsing the wrong policies of their superiors. If they resign, 
they are likely to see their positions filled by persons of subver- 
sive leanings. Fortunately for America, most of them have de- 
cided to stick to their posts and will be there to help their new 
patriotic superiors, after a clean-up has been effected. 

A clean-up in our government will give a new life not only to 
patriotic Washington officials, civilian and military, but to our 
higher military and naval officers everywhere. Their new spirit 
will bring confidence to all ranks and to the American people. 
Once again, military service will be a privilege and an honor 
instead of, as at present to most people, a sentence to a period of 
slaver)' and possible death for a policy that has never been stated 
and cannot be stated, for it is at best a vote-gamering, bureauc- 
racy-building, control-establishing program of expediency. 


The Iron Curtain Over America 

A clean-out of our leftist-infested government will also have 
the great virtue of freeing our people from the haunting night- 
mare of fear. Fear will vanish with the Communists, the fellow- 
travelers, and the caterers to their votes. For America is essen- 
tially strong. In the words of General MacArthur in Austin: 

This great nation of ours was never more powerful . . . 
it never had less reason for fear. It was never more able to 
meet the exacting tests of leadership in peace or in war, spir- 
itually, physically, or materially. As it is yet unconquered, 
so it is unconquerable. 

Tile great general’s words are true, provided we do not de- 
troy ourselves. 

Therefore, with their country’s survival at heart, let all true 
Americans — fearing no political faction and no alien minority 
or ideology — work along the lines suggested in this book to the 
great end that all men with Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam connec- 
tions and all others of doubtful loyalty to our country and to our 
type of civilization be removed under law from policy-making 
and all other sensitive positions in our government. In that way 
only can a start be made toward throwing back the present 
tightly drawn iron curtain of censorship. In that way only can we 
avoid the continuing interment of our native boys beneath far- 
off white crosses, whether by inane blunderings or for sinister 
concealed purposes. In that way only can we save America. 


Since The Iron Curtain Over America developed out of many 
years of study, travel, and intelligence service, followed by a 
more recent period of intensive research and consultation with 
experts, the author is indebted in one way or another to hun- 
dreds of people. 

First of all, there is a lasting obligation to his former teachers 
— particularly his tutors, instructors, and university professors of 
languages. The more exacting, and therefore the most gratefully 
remembered, are Sallie Jones, Leonidas R. Dingus, Oliver Hol- 
ben, James S. McLemore, Thomas Fitz-Hugh, Richard Henry 
Wilson, C. Alplionso Smith, William Witherle Lawrence, George 
Philip Krapp, C. Pujadas, Joseph Delcourt, and Maurice Gram- 
mont. Some of these teachers required a knowledge of the 
history, the resources, the culture, and the ideals of the peoples 
whose language they were imparting. Their memories are green. 

In the second place, the author is deeply obligated to M. 
Albert Kahn and to the six trustees of the American Albert Kahn 
Foundation — Edward Dean Adams, Nicholas Murray Butler, 
Charles D. Walcott, Abbott Lawrence Lowell, Henry Fairfield 
Osborn, and Henry Smith Pritchett — who chose him as their 
representative abroad for 1926-27. Without the accolade of these 
men, and the help of their distinguished Secretary, Dr. Frank D. 
Fackenthal, the author might not have found the way, a quarter 
of a century later, to The Iron Curtain Over America. 

In the third instance, the author owes, of course, a very great 
debt to the many men and women who were his fellow workers 
in the extensive field of strategic intelligence, and to those per-, 
sons who came to his office for interview from all parts of the 
world. This obligation is not, however, for specific details, but 
for a general background of knowledge which became a guide 
to subsequent study. 

To friends and helpers in several other categories, the author 


230 The Iron Curtain Over America 

expresses here his deep obligation. A score or more of senators 
and congressmen gave him information, furthered his research, 
sent him needed government documents or photostats when 
originals were not available, introduced him to valuable con- 
tacts and otherwise rendered very important assistance. Certain 
friends who are university professors, eminent lawyers, and politi- 
cal analysts, have read and criticized constructively all or a part 
of (he manuscript. The stafFs of a number of libraries have helped, 
but the author has leant most heavily upon the Library of Con- 
gress, the Library of the University of Virginia, and above all the 
Library of Southern Methodist University, where assistance was 
always willing, speedy, and competent. Finally, four secretaries 
have been most patient and accurate in copying and recopying 
thousands of pages bristling with proper names, titles of books 
and articles, quotations, and dates. 

For a special reason, however, the author will call the name 
of no one who has helped him since 1927. “Smears” and reprisals 
upon eminent persons become well known, but for one such 
notable victim, a thousand others in the government, in univer- 
sities, and even in private citizenship, suffer indignities from 
arrogant minority wielders of the power of censorship and from 
their hirelings and dupes. Reluctantly, then, no personal thanks 
are here expressed. The authors friends know well his appre- 
ciation of their help, and will understand. 

To all the works cited and to all the authorities quoted in 
The Iron Curtain Over America, the author owes a debt which 
he gratefully acknowledges. For the use of copyrighted excerpts 
over a few lines in length, lie has received the specific permission 
of authors and publishers, and takes pleasure in extending thanks 
to the following: The American Legion Magazine and National 
Commander (1950-1951) Erie Cocke, Jr.; Professor Harry Elmer 
Bamcs; Mr. Bruce Barton and the King Features Syndicate; The 
Christophers; the Clover Business Letter; Duell, Sloan, and 
Pearce, Inc.; The Freeman; The Embassy of Lebanon; Human 
Events; The New York Times; The Tablet; The Universal Jewish 
Encyclopedia Company, Inc.; The Washington Daily Ncivs; and 
the Washington Times-ilerald . Further details including the titles 

Acknowledgments 237 

and names of authors are given on the appropriate pages, in 
order that those interested may know how to locate the cited 
work, whether for purchase or perusal in a library. 

Two newspapers and hvo magazines deserve especial thanks. 
Because of a full coverage of news and the verbatim reprinting of 
official documents, the current issues and the thoroughly indexed 
bound or microfilmed back numbers of the New York Times were 
essential in the preparation of The Iron Curtain Over America . 
The Washington Times-ilerald was obligatory reading, too, be- 
cause of its coverage of the Washington scene, as well as the 
international scene, with fearless uncensored reporting. After 
careful checkings for accuracy and viewpoint, both the American 
Legion Magazine and Foreign Service, the magazine of the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, have published feature articles by the 
author in the general field of United States-Soviet relations. 
Dedicated as it is to those veterans who gave their lives. The 
Iron Curtain Over America may be considered as a token of 
gratitude to our two great organizations of veterans for personal 
introductions to their five million patriotic readers. 

To one and all, then — to publishers, to periodicals, and to 
people who have helped — to the dead as well as to the living — 
to the few who have been named and to the many who must 
remain anonymous — and finally to his readers, most of whom 
he will never know except in the spiritual kinship of a great 
shared mission of spreading the Truth, the author says thank you, 
from the bottom of his heart! 




For the eighth printing of The Iron Curtain 
Over America, the type has been newly set, and 
in certain vital matters the text has been changed 
to record the progress of events. 

The author is deeply grateful to the bookstores, 
patriotic societies, church groups, periodicals, and 
individuals who have introduced his book to almost 
all parts of our country. 

J. B. 

June, 1952. 

Abadan (Iran), refineries at, 215 
Abraham Lincoln Brigade, 209 
Abrnbam Lincoln School, Chicago, 01., 

Abt. John J., 178 
Academic pressures and fears, 100 
Achcson, Dean, 52, 53, 54, 58, 115, 118, 
121, 138, 140, 145, 149, 152, 154, 
158, 171, 177, 185, 180, 190, 198, 
207, 214, 215 
“Achcson law firm,” 58 
“Achcson ians,” 225 
“Achcson’s Cift to Stalin," 220 
Acre (Holy Land), 4, 5 
Acre I’rison bombed, 127 
Action Committee to Free Spain Now, 

Adlon, Hotel, 11 

Advertising agencies, their pressure 
upon newspapers, 92 
Advertising Club of Washington, 93 
Africa, 34, 213, 219; Jews OF, 194; 

"land reform" in, 221 
“Africa and Our Security" (Fellers), 

African Air bases, 214 
“Against World Communism," 139 
Age of honor, suspended, 157 
Aggression, two IT. S. attitudes toward, 

“Agrarian democrats,” 113 
"Aid and comfort" to an enemy, 148 
Air bases, African, 214 
Air Corps, U. S. t manpower of, 57 
Air reconnaissance denied MacArthur, 

Alaska, 59, 219, 220; shoreline of, 204 
Albert Kahn Foundation, lx 
Albert of Hohenzollem, 0, 7 
Aleppo-Baghdad-Cairo triangle, 213 
Alexander 1, 22, 23 
Alexander II, 22, 24, 25, 20, 27 
Alexander III, 22, 25 
Alfange, Dean, 128 
Alien-minded officials, 138 
Alien Registration Act of 1940, 45 

Aliens, compared with armed invasion, 
76; five million illegal, 70; illegal 
entry of, 45; in New York, financial 
coup, 161; in Washington, 190; in- 
fluence on culture, 197; slip into jobs, 
160; subversive, criminal, immoral, 

Allied Control Council in Berlin, 78 
Alps, the, 09 

Amalgamation of German immigrants, 

Ambassador, U. S., to Germany, 
recalled, 60 

America, 4, 8, 14, 25, 53, 65; a “Jewish 
land," 138; and Christianity, 191; 
moral power of, in Middle East, 216; 
useless if bankrupt, 220 
"America Betrayed at Yalta" (Smith), 
74, 85 

America First, 101, 104 
American As He Is, The (Butler), 30 
American attitudes, traditional, 130 
American aviators in Nationalist 
Chinese Army, 112 
American Bar Association, 47 
“America Can Still Be Free,” chapter lx 
American casualties in Korea, 148, 171 
American-Chinese relations, 112 
American clergy, 101 
American colonies, 8 
American Committee for Protection of 
Foreign Bom, 102 

American Communications Association. 

American Communists. See Communist t 
American Federation of Labor, 53, 200, 
202, 212, 221 

American Foreign Policy In the Making 
(Beard), 64 

American government, Soviet influence 
in, 80 

American Hebrew, The, 105 
American Heritage Protective 
Committee, 55 
American history, 53 
American honor and security, forgotten, 






American Institute of Public Opinion, 


Amcricnn Jewish Congress, 50 
"American Jewish masses,” 34 
American Jewish organizations, 123 
American Jews, 105, 106 
American f.ilxrr, fifth column In, 20 
American Labor Party, 83, 84 
American League Against War and 
Fascism, 102 

American Legion, 53, 154, 180, 188, 
197, 218 

American Legion Magazine, 52, 82, 94, 
95, 105, 154 

American Liberty League, 101 
American Mercury, 52, 94, 95 
American Mllilnnj Government In 
Germany (Zink), 77, 138, 107 
American officers in “Israeli” armies, 
131. 216 

American Peace Mobilization, 102 
American people, 10, 13, 205, 206, 225 
American policy in China, 114 
American politicians, 123 
American Renaissance Book Club, 97 
American Russian Institute (of San 
Francisco), 102 
American Slav Congress, 102 
American Society of Newspaper Editors, 
87. 88 

"American-Soviet Friendship Day," 02 
American system of government, 200 
American tradition, the, 197 
American way of life, weakened, 193 
American Youth Congress, 102 
American Youth for Democracy, 102 
American Zionist Handbook, 35 
Americanism, 48 

Americans of Cerman descent, 9, 75 
Americans, native, do menial work for 
refugees, 164 

America's China policy, 95 
America's Second Crusade (Chamber- 
lin), 12, 07, 137, 141 
America’s sponsorship of "Israel,” 217 
Ammunition, shortage of, 84; stored by 
Zionist society, 217 
Amsterdam, 62 

Anarchists, The (Vizetellv), 25 
Ancient Russia (Vernadsky), 15, 10, 17 
Andalusia, 195 
Angles, 17 

Anglo-American Catholics, 37 

Anglo-American Joint-Staff 
Conferences, 83 
“Anglo-Saxon” powers, 217 
Anna of Prussia, 8 
“Anti-Arab Policies are Un-Amcricon 
Policies" (Nocking), 136 
Anti-American propaganda, 181 
Anti-Christian power, 107 
Anti-Commnnism and anti-Semitism, 

Anti-Commnnist activity, 205 
Anti-Defamation League, 9-1 
Anti-German campaign, 63 
Anti-Ccrman policy, 13 
“Anti-Semitic termites," 105 
“Anti-Semitism,” 25, 29, 97, 98, 104, 
105, 106. 205 
Anti-suhvcrsivc laws, 204 
Anzio bridgehead, 74 
Appropriations, Senate Committee on. 

“Arab and Asiatic" nations, 133 
Arab and Moslem peoples, 136 
Arab Higher Command Hendtpiarten, 
bombed, 127 

Arab lands, "Israeli" seizure of, 127 

Arab League, 127 

Arab people, 123, 132 

Arab population, 131 

Arab refugees, 127, 217 

Arab world and “Israel," 120, 107 

Arabia, 130 

Arabs, 195, 219; blame America foi 
plight, 127; expelled from Palestine, 
126, 127, 129, 167, 216, 217; Old 
Testament Jews and, 103; promised 
self-rule in Palestine, 49; U. S. Justice 
and, 139 

Aranha, Dr. Oswaldo, 124 
Armament industries, Hitler’s, 66 
Armed forces of United Nations, 223 
Armed forces, U. S., character guidance 
in, 57 

Armed invasion and aliens, 70 
Armed Services nnd Foreign Relations 
Committees of the Senate, 115, 145, 
147, 149, 150, 151, 210 
Armistice (World War I), 10 
Armstrong, O. K., 203 
Army Field Forces, xiv 
Army Intelligence in Germany, 165 
Army-Navy Joint War Plan, 83 
"Army Still Busy Kicking Out Reds," 

Army, U. S„ manpower of, 57; Com- 
munist plans for revolt in, 231 
Army War College, 9 
"Aryans," killing of, 74 
As He Sato It (Roosevelt), 68, 74, 86, 
123, 214 

Asia, 1, 15, 53, 219; “land reform" fn, 
221; struggle for, 119 
"Asiatic hordes,” term liked by 
Kremlin, 220 

Assassinations in Russia, 25 
Assembly of UN, U. S. vote in, 223 
Assimilation, 165 
Associated Press Managing Editors 
Association, 88 

Association of Jewish Refugees and Im- 
migrants from Poland, 164 
Atheistic Communism, 198 
Atlantic Charter, 114, 153 
Allantic City, 39 
Atlantic Monthly, The, 77, 130 
Atom projects, 55 
Atom Spies, The (Pilot), 167 
Atom T reason (Britton), 33 
Atomic bomb stockpile, 142 
Atomic Energy Commission, 59 
Atomic energy employees, 56 
Atomic espionage, in America, 35, 104, 

Atomic espionage, in Canada, and trials, 
29, 30, 32. 104 
Atomic officials, 55 
Atomic secrets, theft of, 55 
Atomic spies, 56 
"Atomic Traitors” (Busbey), 33 
Atrocities by “displaced persons," 141; 
Soviet, 71 

Attaches, Communist, 181 
Attlee’s Socialist government, 57, 100, 

Attorney General, the, 209; testimony 
on Communists, 33 
Augcas, King, 172 
Austin, Warren, U. S. Delegate to 
United Nations, 131, 155 
Austria, 8, 10, 11 

Austro-Hungarian Empire, 10, 11, 12 
Auszen Alster (Hamburg), pageant on, 

Aviators, U, S., and Spain, 208 
Axis countries and Spain, 208 
Azov, Sea of, 15 

Babylonian Talmud, 19. 23, 27, 31 
Bndcau, John S., 130, 132 
Baghdad, Izra Daoud Synagogue In, 
217; Zionist Society, ammunition 
Stored by, 217 
Baikal, Lake, 117 
Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, 4 
Baldwin, Hanson, 219 
Balkans, 68 
Baltic, the, 5, 7 
Baltic Provinces, 67 
Baltimore, Lord. 9 
Bancroft, Harding, 225 
Baptists, 37 
Barkley, Frederick, 76 
Barnes, Professor Harry Elmer, 82, 99, 

Barton, Bruce, 100 

Baruch, Bernard, 84, 123 

Basel (Switzerland), 30 

“Batory," S. S„ 33 

Balu, nephew of Genghis Khan, 18 

Beard, Charles A., 31, 66 

Becker, Carl L., 38 

Behind Closed Doors (Zachnrias), 205 

Belgium, 124; Jewish boycott in, 63 

Bell, James, 127 

Benedict Arnolds, present-day, 154 
Bennett, Senator Wallace F., 184 
Berger, Elmer, 38, 39 
Bcria, L. P., 29 

Berlin, 8, 11, 12, 70; police, 93; U. S. 
retreat from, 141 

Berlin Reparation* Assignment (Ratch- 
ford and Ross), 78 
Berman, Jacob, 30 

Bemadolte, Count Folkc, murdered, 
127, 128; report ignored by Truman, 

Bessarabia, 67 
Biblical peoples, 106, 216 
Big Diomede, 219 
Bilby, Kenneth, 125, 128 
"Bipartisan,” 190 
Bismarck, Otto von, 8 
Bissell, Major General Clayton, A. C. of 
S., G-2, SI, 188; praised by Daily 
Worker , 189; U. S. Military Attache 
(London), 189 
Bittelman, Alexander, 34, 35 
Black Sea, 15, 17 
Blackstone’s Commentaries, 21 
Blake, William, 108 





"Bleeding," policy of, 171 
Blocs, pay-olf for votes of, 177 
"Blood and tears,” 72 
Blood of Abraham, etc., 106 
Blood vs. votes, 74 
Blood loss, World War I, 49 
Bloom, Congressman Sol, 76 
Bluecher, Field Marshal 
Gebhard von, 8 
Blum, Leon, 57 
“Body politic,” 193 
Bolshc, 26 

Bolshevik party, Russian, 26, 27, 28, 29 
Bolsheviki, 26, 53 

Bolton, Representative Frances, 215 
Bomb shelters, U. S., 201 
Bombings by Jewish terrorists, 127 
Book clubs, 100 

"Book Reviewers Sell Out China, The” 
(de Toledano), 95 
Book reviews, Now York, x, 95 
Book-selecting personnel, 101 
Books, censorship of, 94; boycott of, 97 
Boxer Rebellion, 115 
Boyars, 20 

Boycott, by Jewish merchants of Wash- 
ington, 93; F. D. Roosevelt's, 62; in- 
ternational Jewish, oF Germany, 62, 
63, 64, 66; of books, 97 
Boyer, Raymond, 29 
Bradley, Cencral Omar, 150, 210 
Brandeis, Justice Louis Dcmbitz, 47, 
48, 49, 50, 52, 183 
Brandeis-typc "liberals," 50 
Brandenburg, 6, 8 
Brand enburg-Prussia, 8 
Brannan, C. F., Secretary of 
Agriculture, 105 
Brazil, 211 

Brewster, Senator Owen, 96, 104 
Brickcr, Senator John W,, 104 
Bridges, Senator Styles, 104, 150, 201 
Britain. 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 27, 49, 61, 65, 
79, 126, 154, 216; Jewish boycott in, 
63; Socialist government of, 210 
“Britain and an American-Spanish Pact" 
(Falls), 209 
British Cabinet, 49 
British Empire, 69, 70 
British Isles, 41 
British non-Christians, 103 
British officers' club bombed, 127 
British people and mass murder, 215 

British Prime Ministers, 43 
British sense of justice, 215 
British war veterans, 13 
Britton, Frank, 33 
Bronstein (Trotsky), 28 
Brooklyn, 131 
Brothman, Abraham, 32 
Browder, Earl, 65, 67 
Brown, Constantine, 103, 147, 203 
Brown University, 169 
Brussels-London Conference, 26 
Brutality in "Israel," 127 
Bucharest, 125 
Budapest, 30 

Bulan, Khazar chieftain, 10 
Bund, Jewish, 26, 27 
Bundism, 68 

Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, State De- 
partment, 86, 93. 113, 114, 119, 185 
Bureau of Publications Digest, 85 
Bureaucracy-building, 159, 220, 233 
Bureaucratic power, 100 
Bureaucrats, jobs for, 139 
Burma Road, 112 
Busbey, Congressman Fred, 33 
Butler, Senator John M., 184 
Butler, Senator Hugh, 199 
Butler, Nicholas Murray, 36, 37 
Buttenwieser, Benjamin J. t 140 
“By What Faith, Then, Can Wo Find 
Hope . . .r (Ecton), 187, 1S3 
Byrd, Senator Harry F., 50. 183 
Byrnes, Governor James F., 78 
Byzantine Empire, 3, 15, 16 

C. I. O., 50, 216 
Cain, Senator Harry, 105 
Cairo Conference, 87 
Cairo Declaration, 112 
California, 51; Communist Party of, 173 
California Jewish Voice , 33 
Calories for “displaced persons” and 
Germans, 78 

Calumny against truth-tellers, 157 
"Camel’s Nose is Under the Tent, The" 
(Wilson), 161 

“Can We Trust the Future to Those 
Who Betrayed the Past?" (Jenner), 

Canada, anti-Communist action by, 32, 
35, 204 

Canada, atomic espionage in, 29, 30, 
32, 104 

Canadian Royal Commission, 32, 35 
"Cannon fodder," its sacrifice to devious 
policy, 109 

Canterbury Tales (Chaucer), 5, 98 
Capehart, Senator Homer E., 104 
Capital gains tax avoided by aliens, 164 
Capitalistic democracies, 44, 45 
Careers That Change Your World 
(Keller), 107 
Carlson, Oliver, 95 

Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace, Dulles, Board Chairman, 190; 
Hiss, President, 190 
Carr, Sam, 32 
Casablanca, 69, 77 
Case, Senator Francis, 179, 184 
Caspian Sea, 15 

Casualties, 73, 148, 150, 171, 224; 
among South Koreans, 153; non-bat- 
tle, 150 

Catherine I of Russia, 21 
Catherine II, the Great, 21, 22 
Catholic World, The, 6, 58, 94, 227 
Catholics, Anglo-American, 37 
Catholics, Northern, 47, 50 
Caucasus Mountains, 15 
Cavaliers, the, 9 

Celler, Congressman Emanuel, 76, 166 
Celler Bill becomes law, 166 
Censorship, Chapter V, 42, 65, 80, 81, 
82, 157. 158, 159, 171, 193; by "edit- 
ing,” 90, 91; iron-curtain of, 197; of 
classics, 98; of men’s minds, 108; of 
news in newspapers, 90 
"Censorship, Gangs, and the Tyranny 
of Minorities” (Beaty), 96 
Centra] Conference of American 
Rabbis, 39 

Chagan, of the Khazars, 16 
Challenging Years, The Autobiography 
of Stephen Wise, 49, 50 
Chamberlin, Neville, Prime Minister, 05 
Chamberlin, William Henry, 12, 67, 
118, 137, 141 

Character guidance in the armed forces, 

Charlemagne, 1 
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 98 
Chaucer's Knight, 5, 6, 93 
Chennault, General Claire, 140, 207 
Chiang Kai-Shek, 112, 113, 119, 145, 
154; blockaded on Formosa, 154; his 
help refused, 147; his troops, 119, 

146, 154; "hit-and-run” raids by, 146; 
intercepts Communist supplies, 146 
Chicago Tribune, 58, 64 
Child, Professor Clarence Criffin, 5 
Chile, 124 

China, 115, 116, 118, 170; ammunition 
for, 116; Christian element in, 116; 
corruption in, 116; military supplies 
and advice for, 118; "no assistance 
policy," 117; policy of President Tru- 
man, 115, 137; population of, 151; 
U. S. Military and Naval Advisory 
groups, 117; U. S. Pro-Soviet policy 
in, 116; "Wait and See” policy, 117 
China-Burma-India Theater, 112 
China Story, The (Utley), 112, 113, 
116, 144 

Chinese Communists, 113, 114, 118, 
119, 122,144, 151, 170, 171, 183,214; 
aided by U. S. blockade, 203; ej- 
ected defeat, 149; troops supplied 
y U. S. policy, 147 
Chinese Communist Party, membership, 

Chinese National Government, 115 
Chinese Nationalists, 120 
Chinese population, reduction proposed, 
170. 171 

Chiperficld, Congressman Robert B., 

Choice, The (Shubb), 227 
Choir-boy murdered by Jews, 98 
Chiu st, xiii, 1, 2. 3, 14, 109, 136, 170, 
188, 202, 205; His Sermon on the 
Mount, 169 

Christian Century, The, 136 
Christian civilization, 14, 38, 39, 80, 
107, 197, 229 

Christian counter-penetration, 107 
Christian denominations, 206; antagon- 
ism among, 19-3 
Christian faith, 198 
Christian missionaries, 190 
“Christian name,” 107 
Christian nations, their fall, 198 
Christian slaves, possession of by Jews, 

Christian West, 6, 137, 169, 205 
Christianity, 5, 7, 16, 17, 21. 74, 170; 
basis of national unity, 191; classical, 
191; democracy and patriotism, 190; 
in America, 191; in Russia, 227; in- 
difference to, 190 





Christians, 37, 79; massacre of, 194; and 
Moslems, 135 
Christophers, The, 107 
Chungking, 113, 114 
Church of Rome, 1, 3, 7 
Churchill, Winston. 60, 63, 69, 70, 215 
Churchill’s government (1951), 216 
Cinema Educational Cuild, 94 
Civil Rfghts Congress and its affiliates, 

Civilian casualties, German, 141 
Clapper, Raymond, xl 
Clark, General Mark, 69, 74. 153 
Classics, censorship of, 98 
"Clear even,' thing with Sidney,” 46 
Clemcnccau, Premier Ccorges, 10 
Clergy, American, 101 
Clermont (France), 1, 2 
Cleveland (Ohio), 160 
Cleveland, President Grover, 46 
Clinehy, Dr. Everett R., 94 
Close, Upton, 97 
Clover Business Letter, 158 
Coalition, of Democratic, American 
Labor, and Liberal parties, 83; of Re- 
publicans and Southern Democrats, 

Cocke, Eric, Jr., 154 
Cockle shells in Philippine waters, 142 
Cohen, Benjamin V., 58 
Collectivism in U, S., 160 
Columbia University, 33, 36; Alumni 
Club of, in Dallas, 60, 176 
Columbus, Knights of, 4 
Comite Coordinator Pro Republica 
Espanola, 209 

Commerce, Department of, 199 
Commissariats, Soviet, 23 
Committees of Congress, see Armed 
Services, Appropriations, etc. 
Communications system in danger, 200 
Communism, 11, 14, 25, 26, 27, 2S, 30, 
32, 52, 89, 116, 196, 201; and Chris- 
tianity, 205; nnd “Israel,” 125; and 
truth, 109; Franco on, 209; Germans 
aroused against, 139; lmnds-off pol- 
icy toward, 65; Hitler’s attitude to- 
ward, 61; in Hollywood (motion pic- 
tures), 04, ISO; in universities, 101; 
in War Department, Committee on, 
139; lend lease bolsters, 114; mas- 
querades as democracy, 68; need for 
vigilance against, 204; opponents of, 

branded “anti-Semitic,” 104; over- 
seas adventures against, 200; Roose- 
velt courts it, 139; Russian, 44; vic- 
tory of, 68 

"Communism” (LaskI), 26 
Communist and anti-Cerman votes, 73 
Communist Activities Among Alien# and 
National Croups, 33, 209, 223 
Communist alliance, protested by Taft, 

Communist blueprint of violent attack, 

Communist China, 121, 126 
Communist conspiracy, international, 

Communist demands and executive 
action, 203 

Communist expansion, 118 
Communist government, 13, 14, 28, 30, 

Communist- inclined immigrants, 45 
Communist-inclined textbooks, 101 
"Communist Influence on tbo Arts” 
(Martin), 94 

Communist Manifesto, 205 
Communist masters of Russia, 135 
Communist network, 181 
Communist organization in U. S., 181 
Communist organizations, partial list, 

Communist Party, 26, 27, 30, 44, 54, 
105, 173; coalition with Democrats. 
230; in France, 212; leaders, 173; of 
California, 173; support of, promised 
Roosevelt, 65 

"Communist Peace Offensive, The,” 18D 
Communist personnel in high places, 
protection of, 186 

"Communist propaganda activities In 
the United States,” 232 
Communist press, 29 
"Communist Record in Hollywood, 
The” (Carlson), 94 
Communist tactics, 105 
Communist totalitarian dictatorship, 181 
Communist world power, 187 
Communists, 44, 200; nnd orientation 
of soldiers, 203; nnd world labor, 
200; frustration of, 199; German, 61; 
in Chinn, Achcson on, 121; in France, 
144; in government, 202; in Russia, 
22, 23; in U. S.. 32, 33; in U, S. 
army, McCloy on, 188; in U. S., Dum- 

ber of, 181; on U. N. staff, 221; re- 
prisals by, 231; seek the young, 196; 
take over” Palestine partition, 125; 
vital power-positions in our govern- 
ment, 83 

"Communities, ancient,” 16 
Communities, Jewish, 16, PPi* 

Compton (California), 223 
Conant, James Bryant. 104 
"Conditioning the public mind,” 101 
“Confidential/’ 88 
Congress, authority of, 183 
Congress, committees of, see Armed 
Services, Appropriations, etc. 
Congress of American Women, 102 
“Congress of American Women, Report 
on the,” 103 

Congress, the, see names of commit- 
tees, bills, individual members, etc. 
Congressional Directory, 176, 186 
Congressional Record, 55, 70, 151, 203. 

"Conjuring up another war,” 153 
Connally, Senator Tom, 177 
Conservative Party, Britain, 57, 212 
Conservatives, attitude of, 173 
Constitution of the United States, 43, 
SO, 138, 153. 154, 177, 178, ISO, 183, 
184, 185, 207, 225, 230, 231 
Const it ufron of the United Slates, Its 
Sources and Us Application (Nor- 
ton), 183 

Constitutional government, 40 
Constitutional right of petition. 174 
Controls, increased by war, 159 
Conway, Robert, 131 
Coolidge, President Calvin, 41, 53 
Cooper, Kent, 88 

Co-operative communities in "Israel,” 

„ 127 

"Co-operative order," 48 

Cordoba, or Cordova (Spain), 195, 211 

Corsica, 213 

“Corrupt and conquer," 103 
"Corrupt and rule,” 193 
Corruption of American youth, 193; of 
officials, 29 
Cosmopolitan, 47 

Council for Pan-American Democracy. 
102 3 
Council of Peoples Commissars, 28 
Courage of U. S. soldiers, 109 
Credits and loans, 115 
Crete, island of, 213 

Crimea, 17 

Criterion for true Americans, 66 
Cruclati, 3 

Crusade, The: The World*# Debate 
(Belloc), 4 

Crusaders, 3, 4, 14, 31; Chivalric 
Orders of, 4 
Crusades, 1, 3, 22 
Crusades, The (Lamb), 1 
Cultural standards, degradation of, x 
Culture, influenced by aliens, 197 
Culver City (California), 223 
Currie, Lauchlin, 207 
Cvetic, Matt, 44 
Cymbcline (Shakespeare), 97 
Cyprus, island of, 4, 213 
“Czar Liberator," 24, 25 
Czars, Romanov, 14, 23 
Czechoslovakia, Germans in, 11; Jewish 
boycott in, 63; Soviet-controlled, 30 

Dachau, 78 

Daily News, New York, 93 
Daily News, Washington, 151, 164 
Daily Worker, 32, 103, 189, 203 
Dallas (Texas), 60, 133, 161 
Dallas Morning News, ix, 94, 109, 119 
126, 133, 178, 210 
Dallas Womans Club, 81 
Daly, John Jay, 223 
Daniels, Jonathan, 179 
Danube Valley, 10 
Dardanelles, the, 213 
Davis, Elmer, 81 
Dead Sea minerals, 31 
Dean, General William F., 145 
"Defamation,” 99 
Defense agencies, 199 
Defense Department, 88, 108, 141, 145, 

Defense of the West, 207, 210 
Defense Production Administration, 57 
Delegates to national political conven- 
tions, selection of, 174 
Democratic-Communist coalition, £30 
Democratic-Communist collaboration, 


Democratic-leftist political deal of 
1944, 111 

Democratic Party, 43, 48, 47, 50, 56, 
79, 83, 97, 162, 169, 171, 173; 
changing to Socialist party, 161; its 
predatory purposes, 51; platform of. 





161; platform on "Israel," 128 
Democratic politicians, 74 
Democratic popular vote in 1912, 40 
Democratic presidents and war, 159 
Democrats, failure to win majority, 162; 
non-Christian, 52; non-leftist, 174; 
Northern, 89; socialistically inclined, 
160; three kinds oF, 73 
Dempsey, Mary Jane, 127 
Denfeld, Admiral L. E., 207 
Departments, sec Stale, Defense, etc. 
Der Judenstatt (The Jews' State) 
(Herzl), 30 

Design for War (Sanborn), 07, 81, 142 
Destroyer deal, S3 
De Tolcdano, Ralph, 95 
Dewey, Governor Thomas E. ( 121, 122, 
128, 173 

Dialectic materialism, 110, 169 
Diamonds, smuggling of, by refugee*. 

Dickens, Charles, 93, 94 
Dictator, danger from, 67, 160 
Diderot, Denis, 22 

“Did the Movies Really Clean House?" 
(Matthews), 94 

Dies Committee, 230 (see also Un- 
American Activities, Committee on) 
Dies, Martin, 55, 66 
Diomede Islands, 219 
Diplomacy, 79; combat phase of, 60; 

objectives through, 142 
Diplomatic advantage rejected by U. S., 

Diplomatic relations with Germany, 60 
“Directory of Labor Unions in the 
United States,” 56 
Dirksen, Senator Everett M., 104 
Dismantling German factories, 139, 140 
Displaced Arabs, 217 
"Displaced persons," 77, 165, 160; 
atrocities by, 151; chief problem of 
military government, 166; disrespect 
for law, 105; fraudulent entry by, 
165; loot, murder, rape by, 167; no- 
lice records changed, 166; provided 
with fire-arms, 167 
Displaced Persons Commission, 165, 


“Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction" 
(MeCarran), 33, 162 
“Divido and destroy," 93 
“Divide and rule,” 193 

“Divided wo foil,” 205 
Dnieper river, 17 
Doenhoff, Marion, 163 
Domestic Policy of U. S., 65 
Don river, 15 
"Doubtful” states, 51, 130 
Douglas, Mrs. Helen G., 184 
Draft age, 108 

Driscoll, Covemor Alfred E., 104 
Duff, Senator James, 104 
Dulles, John Foster, ISO; and Hiss, 121 
Dnlles-Acheson treaty with Japan, 154 
Duplicity, Soviet, 54 
Dutch racial strain in America, 75 
Dwina river, West, 17 
Dzugashvili, also spelled Dzhugashvili 
(Stalin), 32 

Earle, Edward Mead, 201 
East and West of Sues (Badeau), 130, 

East German transportation network, 
142, 143 

Eastern Hemisphere, 111 
Eban, Ambassador Abba S., 133, 135 
Ebert, Friedrich, 61 
"Economic boycott,” Jewish, 62 
Economic collapse of Germany, 10, 11, 

Economic Council Letter, 77 
Economic pressure, 222 
Economic standards, 40 
Ecton, Senator Tales N., 104, 188 
Eden, Anthony, British Foreign Secro- 
tary, 68 

"Editing” of news dispatches, 90 
Educational Forum, The, 109 
Edwards, Willard, 203 
Egypt, 214, 218; address by Ambassa- 
dor Kamil, 218; and “Israel," 126; 
Jewish boycott in, 63 
Eighteenth Congress of the Communist 
Party', 199 

Eighty-first Congress, 184 
Eisenhower, General Dwight D., 35, 60, 
70, 104, 171; ns Commander-In-Chief, 
141; German attitude toward, 92, 141; 
in Germany, 141; on German popu- 
lation, 141 
Eislcr, Gerhardt, 33 
Eisner, Kurt, 11 

Elbe river, 70, 71, 72, 143, 186 
Elections, 126; propaganda during, 130 

Elector, the Hohenzollem, 6 
Electoral and financial pressure, 36 
Electoral majorities, Democratic, 
dwindling, 159 

Electoral vote in U. S., 51, 162, 209 
Electoral votes in doubtful states, 130 
Elizabeth of Russia, 21 
“Emergency in the Air” (Fellers), 153 
Emporia Cazctte, 92 
Enciclopedia haliana, 29 
“Encirclement,” 66 

Encyclopaedia Tlrltannica, 3, 5, 7, 8, 
17,21,22,49, 195 
“Enemies of Christ,” 21 
Enemy territory sacrosanct, 154 
Engels, Friedrich, 187 
England, 8, 13, 193; forced into war, 65 
English company, Spanish Civil War, 57 
Englisli-GennanTrish majority, 37 
English racial strain in America, 75 
Entente ( World War I), 9 
Espionage, Communist, 181 
Espionage in the government, 203; per- 
sonnel, 22-1 
Esthonians, 226 
Estonia, 53 

Europe, sec country, etc, 

Europeans, Eastern, 12, 23, 30, 31, 51, 

Evening Star, The, Washington, 87, 
103, 131, 140, 147, 203, 206 
“Everlasting life,” 106 
Executive action and Communist de- 
mands, 203 

Executive agencies, 199 
Executive Branch, 182, 200 
Executive Office of the President, 59 
Executive staff henchmen, 137 

F. B. I., 55, 109, 200 
EM broadcasting. 93 
Fabian socialists, 53 
"Facts About Jews in Washington" 
(Kiplinger), 56 
Facts Forum, 94 
Fagan, Mjtoii C., 94 
Fagin, 93, 94 

"Fagin in Berlin Provokes a Riot,” 94 
Fahey, Rev. Denis, 28 
“Fair Deal” program, 160 
"Fair Enough" (Pegler), 84 
Fairchild, Henry Pratt, 39 
Faith, 103 

'Take DP’s” 166 
Falls, Professor Cyril, 209 
Falsifications by Jewish interpreters, 

"Family name,” 107 

Famine, Soviet attitude toward, 169 

Far East, see country, etc. 

Far Eastern Affairs, Bureau of, State 
Department, 86, 95, 113, 114, 119, 

Far Eastern Command, 149 
Far Eastern policy, 149 
Farley, James A., 85 
Fascism, victory of, Senator Taft on, 68 
"Fascists,” 67. 104, 205 
Fay, Sidney Bradshaw, 5, 6, 7 
Fear, freedom from, 233 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 55, 
109, 200 

Feinberg, Alexander, 3 25 
Feinsinger, Nathan P., 57 
Fellers, General Bonner, 149, 153, 189, 
203, 214, 227, 228 
Ferguson, Senator Homer, 186 
Fictitious documents, displaced persons 
use, 165 

Fielding, Capt. Michael, 197 
Fifth Army, 74 

Fifty Billion Dollars (Jones), 72 
Finance Committee, Senate, 199 
Financial interests, anti-German, 03 
Finkelstein (I.ilWnoff), 52 
Finland, Gulf of, 5 
Finland, Jewish boycott in, 03 
Fire-arms, displaced persons uso, 167 
Fire Department, chief of, jailed for 
UN “practice," 223 
Flag of "Israel,” 223 
Flag of United Nations, 223 
Flaxer, Abram, 202 
Fleischman, Manly, 57 
"Flying Tigers,” 146 
Flynn, John T., 221 
Forced labor outside Germany, 137 
Foreign agents In U. S., 181 
Foreign Affairs, House Committee on, 
75, 85, 177 

Foreign entanglements, 170, 177; F. D. 
Roosevelt on, 64 

Foreign languages and U. S. soldiers, 

Foreign legations, Communist, 181 



Foreign military policy of U. S., 205, 
220 _ „ 
Foreign policy, U. S., Chapter VI, 65, 
111, 149. 150, 158, 161, 163, 109; 
aims, 158; control of. 51 
Foreign Policy Association, 130 
Foreign Relations, Senate Committee 
on, 86. 177 

Foreign Transactions, Office of, 199 
"Forgotten Arab Refugees, The" (Bell), 

Formosa, 145, 219; Chiang’s forces on, 
146; importance of, 121; “outside 
U. S. defense perimeter, 144; State 
Department paper on, 119, 120; State 
Department policy on, 122 
Forrcstal, James V„ 05, 67 
Forrestal Diaries, The., 65, 67 
Forster, Arnold, 94, 105, 140 
Forts on U. S. -Canadian border, 11 
Foundation for Economic Education, 

Inc., The, 183 
Four freedoms, 68 
“Fourth Reich,' 1 77 

France, 1, 2, 9, 12, 17, 27, 61, 124, 156, 
211; Communist Party in, 121; Jewish 
boycott in, 63; limited value as ally, 
212; socialist government of, 210 
Franco, General, 208; on Communism. 

Frankfurter, Justice Felix, 52, 54, 58, 

“Frankfurter’s boys," 52, 58 
Franklin, P. L., 145 

Fraudulent entry by displaced persona, 

"Freda, Jewess,” SO 

Frederick (Frederick 'William II of 
Brandenburg-Prussla), first king of 
Prussia, 8 

Frederick of Hohenzollem, 6 
Frederick the Great, 8, 9, 22 
Frederick William, the “Croat Elector," 

Free American institutions endangered, 

“Free American mind sacrificed," 82 
“Freo society," 161 
Freedman, Benjamin H., 31 
Freeman, The, 95, 122, 142, 147, 152, 
183, 185, 189, 206, 210, 214, 226, 227 
Freeman's journal Press, 82, 99 
Freedom, 101. 130, 193; of the press. 

88. 92; of thought, 109 
Freedom of Information, Committee on, 


“French Communism’ 1 (La Guerre), 


French National Assembly, 212 
French racial strain in America, 75 
French transportation network, 143 
Frozen legs and arms, 150 
Fuchs, Klaus, 50. 167 
"Fuehrer," the, 13 

Coch, Samuel B,, 33 
Calfahcr, E. B., 153 
Gallup, Ccorge, 103 
Cangs among book reviewers. 98 
Gasoline, 207; possible Soviet strike for, 
216; world’s supply, 207 
Gates, John, 32 

Gauss, Ambassador Clarence E., 113 
“Cegen Well Bolshewismus,” 139, 142 
General Motors, 104, 161 
General officers. 108, 203 
General Staff officers, 232 
Geneva, 222 
Genghis Khan, 18 
“Gentile poisoners,” etc., 98 
Gentiles, 105 

Cerman attitude toward Jews, 11, 12, 

German civilian casualties, 141 
German economy, 71 
German Empire. 8, 12 
German exchange rate for marks spent 
in Cermany, 63 
Cerman export goods, 63 
German export trade, 64 
Cerman government, 61 
German Hospital of St. Mary, 5 
German immigrants, amalgamation of In 
U. S„ 75 

German imports, general tariffs on, 63 
German industrial plants, dismantling 
of, 79, 139. 140 
German-] ewish tension, 12 
German missile and submarine plants, 

German people, 6, 12, 13, 14, 27, 138; 
atrocities on, 141; inhuman treatment 
of, 78, 79; Irritation of, 139 
German planes, 70 

German population, loot, murder and 
rape of by displaced persons, 167 



German protestantism, 8 
German racial strain in America, 75 
German reaction to Eisenhower, 92, 141 
German rearmament, 222 
German soldiers, execution of, 139 
Cerman states, 6 
German treasury notes, 63 
Cerman war veterans, 13 
“Gennan-Americans,” 74 
Germans, 7; and Hiller’s policies, 135; 
and U. S, justice, 139; aroused against 
Communism, 139; hanging of, 79; 
liquidation of five million, 135; star* 
vat ion of, 77 

Germany, 5, 9, 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 
23, 24, 27, 33, 38, 41, 61, 62, 65, 71, 
91, 207; annihilation of, 77; appeals 
(1937) for peace, 65; blackout of 
recent news from, 92; bulwark of 
Christian Europe, 77; economic war 
against, 61; effort to “break," 63; 
forced labor outside of, 137; “Israeli" 
view of, 133; Jewish move against, 
62; McCloy, High Commissioner of, 
189; many political parlies in, 61; 
population decline in, 163; resurgence 
of, opposed by Jews, 222; road-lilock 
against Communism, 187; Roosevclt- 
Eisenhowcr policy In, 70; Roosevelt’s 
economic and political war against, 
65; trade with, 63; U, S. troops in 
(1951), 142, 144; U. S. use of Jews 
in, 138; "written off as ally,” 212 
Germany’s appeal for peace, 66 
Germany's “war criminals," 215 
"Gettysburg Address" (Lincoln), 91 
“Ghetto," 20, 22, 23 
Gibraltar, Strait of, 212 
Gilbert, Rodney, 227 
"Clamorous Purim Formula: Extermi- 
nate Anti-Semitic Termites" (Spitz), 

“Cod wills it!” 2 

Codbcv, Prof. Allen II., 130 

Gold, ilen, 125 

Gold, Harry, 32, 167 

Golden I lorde, Khanate of the, 18 

Coldsmith, Leonard, 50 

Cordon, E. V„ 17 

Gorman, Father Ralph, 107 

Cospcl, see St, John, etc. 

Gossett, Congressman Ed, 164, 217 
Gotland (Cothland), island of, 226 

Gouzenko, Ivor, 29 
Government, censorship by, 81, 82; 
"classification” of documents, 88; in- 
formation about, 68, 176; of the 
United States, 41; practice seizure of, 
223; restrictions and controls, 101; 
spending, 220 

Government Is Your Business (Keller), 

Graetz, Prof. H., 12, 19, 21, 24, 25, 20, 
27, 37, 38, 194, 195 
Graham, Frank, 184 
Cranada, 195 

Gravediggers of America , The, Part I 
(de Toiedano), 95 
Craves, John Temple, 106 
Crayzcl, Solomon, 15, 22, 23, 20 
"Great Elector.” the, 8 
Greece, 124, 213 
Greek church, 24 
Greek Orthodox missionaries, 17 
Greenbnrg, Cil, 32 
Creenglass, David, 33, 167 
Crew, Ambassador Joseph, 83 
Crimm, F. M., 22 

Guide Booh to Subversive Organisa- 
tions, ISO 

Guide to Subversive Organizations and 
Publications, 103 

“Cuidcbook to 10 years of Secrecy in 
our China Policy, A” (Brewster), 90 
Guided missile works, German, 141 
Cuif States, 80 
“Guns instead of butter," 68 
Cunther, John, 190 

Hnganah, 131 
Haiti, 124 
H alb erg, Gus, 32 
Halt of Mirrors, Versailles, 8 
Halsey, Admiral William F., 207 
“Halutziulh” in tho United States, 222 
Hamburg, 71 
Hamilton, Thomas J., 124 
Itamlet (Shakespeare), 97 
Handbook for Military Government In 
Germany (Zink), 77 
Hanighen, Frank, 212 
Hankow, China, 112 
Harbord, Gen, James G., jdi 
Harding, President Warren C,, 53 
Harkavy, Abraham, 23 
Harriman, Ambassador W. Averell, 81 





Harrison, President Benjamin, 48 
Harvard University, 47, 58, 96 
"Haskalah” movement, 23, 24, 26 
Haskalah Movement in Russia, The 
( Raisin ) , 23, 20 

“Hatchct-inen” book reviewers, 100 
Hawthorne (California), 223 
Hazcn, Prof. Charles Downer, 25 
Hearings Regarding Communism in the 
United Slates Government, 178 
Hubert, Congressman, F. Edward, 179 
Hebrew alphabet, 23 
Hebrew press in “Israel,” 128 
Heckling, 105 
Henry, Prince of Prussia, 8 
Hercules, 172 
Heresy, John, 127 
Ilerzl, Theodore, 30 
Hess, Moses, 24 

High Commissioner for Egypt, 49 
High, Stanley, 199 
Hillman, Sidney, 46, 179, 187 
Hindonburg, Field Marshall Paul von, 

Hirschmann, Ira A., 93 
Hiss, Alger, 58, 74, 137, 138, 154, 179, 
185, 187, 221; and Dulles. 121, 190 
Hiss, Donald, 58 
“I-lissites,” 225 

Historical Atlas (Shepherd), 5, 18 
History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to 
Modem Times, A (Parkes), 194 
History of the Jews (Graetz), 19, 194 
History of the Jews, A (Grayzel), 15, 

History of the Ukraine, A (Hrushovsky) 
17, 26, 226 

History of World War II, 199 
Hitler, Adolf, 12, 13, 61, 160, 169; arma- 
ment industries of, 66; burning of 
boolcs by, 98; deal with Soviet Union, 
67; domestic policy of, 62; number of 
Jews said to be killed by, 135 
“Hitlerite," 105 

Hitler’s policies, Germans and, 135 
Hoare, Sir Samuel, 209 
"Hobcaw Barony,” 84 
Hocking, William Ernest, 136 
Hodgo, Gen. John R., 144 
Hoffman, Michael L., 221 
Hoffman, Paul G., 104 
Hohenzollern, Albert of, 6 
Hohenzollern, Frederick of, 6 

Hobenzollems, 0, 8, 22 
Hokkaido, 153 

Holland, Jewish boycott in, 63 
Hollywood, Communism in, 94, 180 
Holy Land, 3 (see also " Israel ” and 

Holy Roman EmperoT, 8 
Holy Roman Empire, 5 
Holy Sepulcher, 2, 3 
“Holy War,” Jewish, 62 
Hoover, President Herbert, 46, 53, 142, 

Hoover, J. Edgar, Director of the F.B.I., 
105, 109, 181, 200 
Hopkins, Harry, 187 
Hospital, Knights of the, 4 
Hospitalers, 4 

House of Commons, 146; Jews in, 57 
House of Representatives, see commit- 
tees, individual members, etc. 

Housing shortage, 76 
“How Asia’s Policy Was Shaped,” 147 
“How to Lose a World,” 215 
"How U. S. Dollars Armed Russia," 
(Chiperfield), 203 

“How Yiddish Came to Be” (Grayzel), 

Hrushovsky, Michael, 17, 26, 220 
Huie, William Bradford, 47 
Hulen, Bertram D., 65 
Hull, Cordell, 54, 63, 64 
Human Events, 68, 109, 118, 141, 153, 
154, 163, 169, 179, 186, 199, 204, 
212, 217, 219, 227 
Hungary, 30 
Hunt, Frazier, 81, 82 
Huntington Park (California), 223 
Hurley, Patrick J., 86, 87, 113, 114, 
115, 207 

Jbn Saud, King, 131; Roosevelt’s 
promise to, 123 
Ideals, 103 

Ideological disinfecting, 108 

Illegal entrants, 42, 45; undetected, 160 

Illinois, 51 

Illustrated London /Veins, The, 209 
lllustrirle Zeitung, 66 
Ilmen, Lake, 17 

Image of Life (Beaty), x, 92, 96, 97, 

Immigration, from Eastern Europe, 38, 
160, 162; House Committee on 

(1921), 39; Illegal, 41; into the U.S., 
45; investigation needed, 167; law of 
1924, restricting, 45; laws, 181; laws 
unenforced, 45; minority influence on, 
197; U.S, policy on, 35, 163 
Immigration and Naturalization, House 
Committee on (68th Congress), 40, 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 

Immigration and naturalization hearings 
by sub-committee on, 102 
Immigration and Naturalization Systems 
of the United States, The, 36, 37, 40, 
41, 45, 51, 75, 133, 162, 165, 191 
Immigrants, Communist- in dined, 45; 
knowledge of two languages, 223; 
to “Israel," 135 
Impeachment, 180, 183, 201 
“Imperialist,” 205 

“In Washington It’s Waste as Usual,” 
(High), 199 
Indecency, 103 

Individual, his responsibility, 213 
Individual liberty, 40 
Indo-Cermanic peoples, 17 
Intlo-Germanic racial stock, 37 
Infiltration, 36, 55; Communist, 181 
Inflation in Cermany, 11; in U. S., 220 
"Inflation Concerns Everyone” (Fetteo- 

gill), 11 

Inglewood (California), 223 
"Insidious forces working from within,” 
193, 190 

Intelligence, normal procedure denied 
MacArthur, 148; estimates on Soviet, 

Internal affairs of other nations, 221 
Interna! Security Act of 1950, 181, 203; 

vetoed by Truman, 1S2 
Internal security, Senate Sub-Committee 
on, 76 

International Brigades, The, 57 
International Bureau of Labor, 30 
International Fur and Leather Workers 
Union, C.I.O., 125 

„ Com- 
munist tactics, 105 

Introduction to Old Norse, An (Gor- 
don), 17 

Iran, 31. 87, 207, 218; oil, 136, 215; oil 

International Longshoremen’s and 
Warehousemens Union, 201 
Intimidation of persons opposing 

nationalization, 216; Soviet squeeze 
upon, 214 
Iraq, 31, 218 

"Iron Curtain Countries," the people of, 

Irish racial strain in America, 75 
Iron Men and Saints (Lamb), 1 
"Is Israel a ’Natural Ally'?’’ 130 
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel, 49 
Islam, 3, 20; Islamic caliph, 16 
Isolationism, 13 

"Israel,” 27, 129, 175, 204, 211; Ameri- 
ca’s sponsorship of, 128, 129, 217; 
and Palestine mineral resources, 31; 
brutality in, 127; Communism, 125; 
co-operative communities in, 127; 
Democratic platform on, 128; flag of, 
223; grab of Moslem lands, 218; He- 
brew press in, 126; reparations to, 
133; Skoda arms for, 125; strategic 
significance of, 219; votes with Soviet 
Union, 120 

Israel Leaning Toward Russia, Its 
Armorer," 125 

"Israeli" armies, American officers in, 
(> 131,216 

"Israeli” claim for reparations from Ger- 
many, 135 

"Israeli" devotion to Soviet, 126, 127 
"Israeli” enterprise, 127 
"Israeli” seizure of Arab lands, 127, 167 
"It is Just Common Sense to Ask Why 
We Arrived at Our Present Position ’ 
(Reece), 70 
Italian Campaign, 09 
Italians in U. S,, 36, 37 
Italy, 1, 13, 69, 226; U. S. treaty with 

Ityl, Khazar Capital, 15 
Ivan IV, 18 

Izra Daoud Synagogue ( Baghdad ), 217 
Jaffa, 127 

Japan, 13, 65, 71, 83, 117, 121, 122, 
154, 190, 219; as China’s enemy, 112; 
problems ahead, 153, 154; roadblock 
against Communism, 187; under Mao- 
Arthur’s leadership, 153 
Japanese earthquake, 12 
Javits, Congressman Jacob K., 77 
Jefferson School of Social Science, New 
York City, 102 
Jena (Germany), 70 




Jcnner, Senator William E., 104, 188 
Jerusalem, 1, 34, 109; British Officers’ 
Club bombed, 127 
crttsalcm Talmud, 19 
essup, Philip C., 207 
et fighters, German plant, 70 
ewish Agency, 131 

ewish Army, Campaign in U. S. for, 39 
ewish Boycott Conference, C2; boycott 
of goods, shopkeepers, etc., 62, 70 
Jewish Chronicle, The , 49 
Jewish Communists, pressure against 
mentioning, 105 

J ewish congregations fn U. S., 41 
ewish Congress, American, 50 
Jewish Defense Army, Hagnnah, 131 
Jewish demonstrators in Berlin, 93 
Jewish Dilemma, The (Berger), 38 

J ewish force, Iranian frontier, 134, 139 
ewish “holy war,” 62 
Jewish immigrants to Palestine, 123, 
125; to U, S., 25. 37, 52, 166 
Jewish international assembly (1884), 

Jewish interpreters, falsifications by, 


"Jewish irregulars," 123 
"Jewish land," said of America, 138 

J ewish merchants, boycott by, 93 
ewish minority in Spain, 194 
Jewish moves against Cermany, 62, 133, 

Jewish name-changing. 32 
Jewish nationalists and nationalism, 24, 
25, 20, 39 

J ewish organizations, American, 123 
ewish people, "concept” of, 38 
Jewish People Face tho Post War 
World, The” (Bittelmnn), 34 
ewish Peoples Committee, 102 
ewish "point of view” toward Soviet 
Russia, 34 

Jewish population, 25, 41, 42 
Jewish power in U. S., 109 
Jewish press, 39 

“Jewish refugees,” sympathy for, 164 
Jewish religion, 31 
Jewish rulers, Khnzars, 10 
Jewish schools and synagogues, 16, 24 
Jewish Stale, United Committee to Save 
Urn, 125 

"Jewish terrorists,” 127 

Jewish troops, Soviet-supplied, 130 

Jewish Voice, California, 33 

J ewish Welfare Board, National, 57 
cwry, American, dominated by 
Khazars, 39 

Jews, 3, 18. 21, 22. 28. 31, 36, 49. 105 
(see also Judaized Khazars, and Kha- 
zars)-, American- minded, 38, 39; and 
Communism, 11, 25, 27. 30, 32, 35, 
205; attack a theater, 93; force Eng* 
land into war, 65; betray Christians 
in Spain, 195; German, 12, 23, 37; 
German attitude toward, 11, 12, 141; 
illegal entrants, 42; in Eastern Euro- 
pean lands, 134; In House of Com- 
mons, 57; in Moscow and Leningrad, 
226; in U, S. military government, 
13S; In Washington, 58; In Western 
Hemisphere, 41; “killed by Hitler," 
135; New York City's, 38; non-Con- 
gregational, 42; number in Germany, 
134; number in U. S., 41; number 
in world, 134; of Africa, 194; of Meso- 
potamia, 20; of Ukraine, 226; Old 
Testament, 130; Polish, 38; possession 
of Christian slaves by, 195; 'reaction- 
ary," 34; Russian, 20, 23, 24, 26; 
Sephardic, 37; U. S. use of la Ger- 
many, 138 

I oachim I, 6 
oan of Arc, 103 

ohn Sigismund (Hohenzollcm), 8 
ohnson, Louis, 145, 206 
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, 

Jones, Tesse H., 72 
Journo!- American, New York, 119 
Judaism, 16,31; reform, 38, 39 
Judaized Khnzars, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 
26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 43, 130, 164, 227 
(see also Jews and Khnzars) 

Judd, Congressman Walter II., 151 
judicial decisions, legislation by, 48; of 
leftist-minded courts, 224 
Judiciary, Senate Committee on, 41, 134, 
135, 180, 232; sub-cominiltee on im- 
migration, 166 

Justice, British sense of, 215; Nurem- 
berg trials and, 139 
Justice, Department of, 86, 203, 204, 

Kaganovich, Lazar Moiseyevich, 29 
Knhia (Germany), 70 



Kaltenbom, H. V., 149 
Kamil Bey Abdul Rahfm, Ambassador 
of Egypt to U. S., 218 
Kama river, 17 

Kamanev, Jewish revolutionary In 
Russia, 28 

Karbel theater, Berlin, attacked by 
Jews, 93 
Kashmir, 225 
Kntibah, Habib I., 3t 
Katz, Milton, 57, 58, 140, 141 
Kattowitz, 26, 30 
Katyn Massacre, 82 
“Kei! nnd K ess el,” 130 
Keller, Father James, 107 
Kennedy, Joseph P., ambassador, 65 
Key to Peace, The (Manion), 185 
Keyes, Emilie, 149 
Khanates, 15, 20 
Khazar immigrants, chapter ii 
Khnznr khanate, 15, 18, 19 
Khnzars, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 
27, 28, 32, 38, 39, 43, 44, 106, 130. 
(See also, Jews, and Judaized Kha- 

“Kibbutz, The” (Herscy), 127 
Kiev, 17, 18, 20; Grand Dukes of, 20 
"Killing,” 74, 75 
Kimmel, Admiral IT. E., 83 
King. Admiral E. J., 207 
King John (Shakespeare), 193 
King Lear (Shakespeare), 97 
Kiplinger, W. M., 56 
Kittrcdge, George Lyman, 96 
Knighthood of the Teutonic Order, 4, 
15, 78 

Knights, Hospitalers, 3; of Columbus, 4; 
of the Hospital, 4; of Malta, 4; of 
Pythias, 4; Templars, 3, 4; Teutonic, 
5, 6. 7, 9, 14 

Knowlnnd, Senator William F., 104, 

_ 122, 146 

Knox, Secretary of tile Navy Frank, 83 
Kocnfgsburg, 5 

Konoye, Fumimaro, Japanese Premier, 

Korea, 149, 207, 219; Communist troops 
invade, 144; Chinese Communist 
troops in, 146, 147; defeat an expecta- 
tion, 145; our position in, 154; out- 
side of U. S. defense perimeter, 144; 
State Department, 145; U. S. losses 
in, 148, 150, 224; U. S. policy in, 122; 
U. S. purpose in, 170; U. S. troops in. 

144, 145; weapons of U. S. troops, 

145. Sec South Koreans. 

Kramer, Charles, 178 

Kremlin, 52, 53. 54, 103, 136, 155, 171, 
182, 185, 226, 228; agents of, 154 
“Kremlin War on Douglas MacArthur, 
^ The" (Reed), 203 
Krueger, Ccncral Walter, 207 
Kuhn, Irene Corbally, 95 
Kurile Islands, 153 

Labor and Stalinists, 201 
Labor Party, United Kingdom, 57 
Labor unions, 53; Reds in, 200 
Ladoga, Lake, 17 
Lafayette, Marquis of, 10 
La Guerre, Andrd, 212 
Lamb, Harold, 1, 2, 4 
Land ownership in U. S., 222 
"Land reform,” Communists and, 222 
Land warfare, far from home, 168 
Lane, Ambassador Arthur Bliss, 82 
Lnski, Harold J., 26 
Last Days of the Romanovs, The 
(Wilton), 28 

"Lust Five Years, The” (Meany), 2Q0, 


“Last Phase, The” (Lonigan), 179 
"Lute comers” to U. S., 164, 165 
Latin America, 52; and Spain, 211; 

"land reform” in, 221 
Latin Kingdom, 3, 4, 5 
Lnttimore, Owen, 207 
"Lattimore-Hiss gang,” 98 
La Vnrrc, William, 52, 54 
Law, disrespect of among displaced 
persons, 165; superseded by UN 
charter, 224 

Lawrence, David, 1S3, 206, 227 
“Law’s delay,” 139 
League of American Writers, 102 
“Leave me out,” 142 
Lebanon, 132, 156 
"Left coalition,” 111 
“Lcft-of-ccntcr” administrations and 
theft of atomic secrets, 55 
Leftist magazines and newspapers, 157 
Leftist-minded courts, decisions of, 224 
Leftist votes, Truman's concern for, 182 
Lehman, Senator Herbert H„ 59, 105 
LeMay, Ceneral Curtis E., 153 
Lend-lease, 71, 114 
Lenin, 20, 27, 28, 40, 94, 187, 198 




“Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin*. Soviet Con- 
cepts of War," 201 
Leningrad, 21,226 
Leninism, 61 

"Let the pieces settle,” 216 
"Let Us Open the Gates” (Javits), 77 
Letters, controlled, 176; from the peo- 
ple, 213; influence of, 174, 175; to 
newspapers, 176 
Leva, Marx, 140 

Levine, a Jewish Communist in Ger- 
many, II 

Lcvinsohn, Isaac Baer, 23 
Liberal Party, 83, 84, 128, 129 
“Liberals," 47, 67; Brandeis-type, 50 
"Liberated” and other nations, U. S. 

help to, 111 
Liberia, 124 

Liberties, ancient, 109; suppression of, 

Liberty, 40 

Liberty (magazine), 56 
Libraries, 97 

Life. 67, 85, 94, 119, 127, 212, 215 
Life blood of America, wanton waste 
of, 74 

“Light one candle,” 107 
Light, San Antonio, 100 
Lilicnthal, Alfred, 217 
Lilienthal, David, 58 
Lilicnthal, Dr. Max, 24, 204 
L’lllustrntion, 156 

Lincoln Day Speech (Martin), 148 
Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address,” 91 
Lisbon, 208 

Lithuania, 5, 18, 26; Lithuanians, 6, 

Little Diomede, 219 
Litvinov, Maxim, 29, 52, 53 
Lloyd George, Prime Minister David, 
10, 49, 50 

Lodge, Senator Henry Cabot, Jr., 104 
Loinbard, Helen, 68, 69 
Long, Breekenridge, 76 
Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen's 
Union, 201 

Lonigan, Edna, 179, 186 
Look, 104 

"Looting and violence” in Germany, 77 
Lord Allenby, Field Marshal, 49 
Lord Baltimore, 9 
Lost Tribes, The ( Codbey ) , 130 
Louis XIV, 8 

"Louis Johnson's Story is Startling," 206 
Lovett, Robert A., Secretary of Defense, 

Lowenthal, Max, 140, 178, 179 
"Loyalty— Security” cases, State Depart-; 

merit, 182 
Lubin, Jsador, 58 
Lucas, Scott, 184 
Lumiansky, Prof. R. M., 98 
Luncheon clubs, 197 
"Luther and the Modem Mind” 
(Neill), 6 
Luther, Martin, 7 
Luxemburg, 124 
Lyons, Eugene, 105, 227 

MacArthur, General Douglas, 92, 116, 
122, 145, 148, 149, 150, 161, 169, 
174, 175, 182, 193, 197, 202, 203, 
220, 233; a Christian, 151, 190, 191; 
address to Congress, 149; blindfolding 
of, 148; leadership in Japan, 153; re- 
ception of in U. S., 190; speech at 
Cleveland, 160; speech to Massachu- 
setts Legislature, 157; speech to Mis- 
sissippi Legislature, 182; speech to 
Texas Legislature, 193; testimony be- 
fore Congress, 147; wanted Chiang’s 
aid, 147 

MacArthur Committee, 204 
MacArthur investigation, 120 
MacArthur on War ( Waldrop ), 169 
Mac Arthur’s removal, Voice of Amer- 
ica on, 228 

Macbeth (Shakespeare), 97 
McCarran, Senator Pat, 33, 76, 162, 
165, 180, 223 

McCarran-M undt-N ixon anti-Commn- 
nist bill, 184 

McCarrao-Walter bill, 166 
McCarthy, Senator Joseph, 105 
McCloy, John J., 5S, 104, 188, 189; 
High Commissioner of Germany, 139, 
189; on Communists in U. S. Army, 
188; to World Bank, 189 
McCormack, Alfred, 178 
McCormick, Robert R., 58 
Mclntire, Admiral Ross T., 85 
MacMahon, Sir Henry, 49 
MeVane, John, 132 
Mackensen, Field Marshall von, 91 
Madison, President James, 183 

Madison Square Garden, President Tru- 
man's speech at, 129 
Majorca and Minorca, 213 
it takers of Modem Strategy (Earle), 

Malaga (Spain), 195 
Malayan rubber for Chinese Commu- 
nists, 146 

Malik, Dr. Charles. 132 
Malik, Iakov (Jacob), Soviet Delegate 
to UN, 132 

Malone, Senator George W, p 218 
Malta, island of, 4, 14, 213 
Malta, Knights of, 4 
Manchuria]” 112, 118, 151, 152 
Man of Independence, A (Daniels), 179 
Manion, Dean Clarence, 185 
Manuilsky, D. M., 30 
Mao Tse-Tung, 120; his "agrarian re- 
formers,” 154 

Marcantonio, Vito, 84, 184, 231 
Marcus, Colonel David, 131 
Margold, Nathan, 58 
Maria Theresa of Austria, 22 
Marienhurg, 5 
Marine Corps, U. S., 181 
Marshall, Gen. George C., 63, 69, 83 
98, 115. 116, 118, 137, 138, 140, 149^ 
150, 152, 158, 171, 185, 186, 198 
“Martin, Barton, and Fish,” 105 
Martin Dies Committee, 65 (see Un- 
American Activities, Committee on) 
Martin, Cregor, 94 
Martin, Senator Edward, 104 
Martin, Congressman Joe, 105, 148, 207 
Marx, Karl, 26, 27, 34, 187 
Marxian socialists, Roosevelt “stimu- 
lated” by, 53 

Marxism and Marxists, 14, 26, 27 <>8 
61, 101, 196, 222 

Mary II (Stuart), Queen of England, 8 
Maryland, 9, 173 

“Mass murder opposed by Churchill” 

Massachusetts Legislature, MacArthur’s 
speech to, 157, 220 
Massacre of Christians, 194 
Master War Plan, 83 
Matthews, J. B,, 94 
Mayor, jailed for UN “practice," 223 
Meany, George, Secretory-Treasurer of 
A. F. of L., 200, 202, 212 
Measure for Measure (Shakespeare), 97 


Measure of Freedom, A (Forster), 94, 
105, 140 

Medina, Judge Harold R., 178 
Mediterranean, 67, 69, 106, 123, 219 
Mediterranean Islands, 214 
Meltzer, Julian Louis, 127 
Memoirs of Cordell Hull, 137 
"Menace of Communism” (J. Edgar 
Hoover), 105 

Mendelssohn, Moses, 22, 23 
Menjou, Adolphe, 94 
"Menshevik!" Marxists, 26 
“Mental Cght ” 103 
“Mental hygiene,” 108 
Merchant of Venice. The (Shake- 
speare), 98, 97, 169 
Mercy, 79, 170 
Mesopotamia, 20 
"Me-too-ism," 190 

Miami, American Legion convention in. 

Michigan, 51 

Middle East, 120, 127, 136, 177, 212, 
214, 216; oil of, 31, 219; oil reserves 
of, 217, 218; strategic significance of, 
219; Zionist schemes in, 217 
Middle East countries. Communism out- 
lawed in (except "Israel"), 204 
Middleton, Drew, 139, 143 
Military draft, 100 

Military government, and displaced per- 
sons, 166; uses Jews, 138 
Militnrv Intelligence Service, x, 86, 

230, 232 

Military program of U. S., unsound, 203 
Military-religious orders, 3 
“Military survey team,” 210 
Mill and Smelter Workers, 201 
MiJIis, Walter, 65 

Minority, votes, 73, 205, 228; washes 
of a, 157 

Mississippi Legislature, MacArthur’* 
speech to, 182 
Missouri, 86 
Moeh, Jules, 57 

Modem European History (Hazen), 25 
Modern History (Becker), 38 
Mohammed, 10 
Mohammedanism, 16 
Molotov, Viacheslav, 29 
Mongols, 15, 18, 20 
Monroe Doctrine, 11, 35 
Monroe, President James, 35, 38 





Morale of Chinese Communists, 151 
Morgenstern, George, 81 
Morgenthnu, Henry, 52, 53, 54, 59, 79, 
105, 141, JS7 

Morgenthnu Plan, 59, 74, 77, 78, 92, 
103, 137 
Morocco, 214 
Morse, David A., 77 
Moscow, 17, 20, 52, 53, 226 
Moscow, Grand Duchy of, 18; grand 
dukes of, 20 
Moscow, Warren, 129 
"Moscow’s lied Letter Day in Ameri- 
can History” (La Varre),52 
Moskowitz, Miriam, 33 
Moslem and Christian, 135, 2tl 
"Moslem Block, The" (Badcau), 132 
Moslem civilization and UN, 225 
Moslem nations, 3, 212, 218; and Spain, 

Moslem peoples, 31; influence in UN, 

Moslem refugees from Palestine, 218 
Moslems, friendship of, 217, 218 
Motion pictures, censorship in, 93; 

Communism in, 94, ISO, 232 
Much Ado About Nothing 
(Shakespeare), 97 

Mundt, Senator Karl, 104, 174, 179, 
184, 231 

Musa Ibn-Nosnlr, 195 
Muscovy and Muscovite, 20 
Muttcrperl, William, 33 
Myers, Francis, 184 

Mystical Body of Christ (n ihe Modem 
World, The ( Fahey), 28 

Napoleon I (Bonaparte), 8, 169 
Nalion-wilhin-n -nation status of Khazar 
Jews, 165, 193 

National Council for American Educa- 
tion, 101 

National Conference of Christians and 
Jews, 94 

National debt of U. S., 220 
National Democratic Party, 72, 158, 168, 

National Jewish Welfare Board, 57 
National origin, 40, 55 
National origins law, 41 
National Production Authority, 97 
National Republic, 33, 65, 74, 85, 145, 
158, 203, 223 

National Socialist Cerman Workers 
Party, 61 

Nationalist China, 112, 115, 117; troops, 
92, 122, 146 

Nations, U. S. meddling in internal af- 
fairs of, 221 

Native Americans, menial work for ref- 
ugees, 164 

Native slock diminished by war, 163; 

furnishes "villains,” 157, 153 
Nature Friends of America (since 
1935), 102 

Navy, U. S., manpower of, 57 
"Nazi contamination," 138 
Nazi Party, 61 
“Nazis,” 104 

Nazism, Senator Taft on, 68 
Near East, see Middle East 
Negeb Desert, 31 
Neill, Dr. Thomas 7 
Nero, Roman Emperor, 29 
Netherlands East Indies, 225 
Netherlands, The, 124 
Nevada, 173 

New Deal Republicans, 104 
New Deal’s ''Arraignment of Class 
Against Class” (Al Smith), 101 
New England, 9 
New Jersey, 51 
Neto A fosses, 65 

New Testaments for soldiers, 190 
New York book review supplements, x, 

New York, City of, 28, 62, 78; Jews in 
38; votes in, 123, 133 
New York Herald-Tribune, 31, 125, 126 
New York Post, 141 
New York, State of, 51, 62 
New York Stock Exchange, 164 
New York Times, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 60, 
76, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 
139, 149, 153, 161, 164, 173, 177, 
188, 189, 203, 210, 212, 217, 219, 
221, 222 

New York Times Magazine, 77 
New Yorker, The, 127, 167 
New Zealand, 124 
Newfoundland Conference, 83 
News and Courier (Charleston), 100 
News-Herald (Borger, Texas), 44 
“News Notes” (The Christy, hers), 107 
News, regulations to control, 87; slant- 
ing of, 85 

Newsletter of Congressman Gossett, 217 
Newsletter of Representative Bolton, 

Newsletter, U. S. Customs Service, 164 
Newspaper editors, 87, 88 
Newspapers, letters to, 176; pressure 
from advertisers, 92 
Nicholas I, 22, 23, 24 
Nicholas II, 22, 25, 27 
Nickerson, Major Hoffman, 142, 210 
Niemen river, 7 
Niles, David K., 58 
"Ninety-five theses,” 7 
Nixon, Senator Richard M., 104, 179, 

Nizhni-Novgorod (Russia), 17 

“No man can serve two masters,” 188 

“No man spake openly of him," 106 

"No shooting war,” 144 

Nojat river, 5 

Nome (Alaska), 219 

Nominating conventions, national, 174 

Non-Christian alien a problem, 165 

Non-Christian ‘Third force," SO 

Non-Christians, offense to, 106 

"Non-partition," Palestine, 123 

"Non-Zionists must learn,” 222 

Nordhausen (Ccrmany), 70 

Nordic race, 226 

North Africa, 219 

North American Committee to Aid 
Spanish Democracy, 209 
North American Spanish Aid 
Committee, 209 

North Atlantic Defense Treaty, 224 
North Korean Communist army, 152 
North Sea, 72 
North Sea area, 194 
Northern cities, votes in, 123 
Northmen, 17 

Norton, Thomas James, 185 
Norway, x, 64 

Nuremberg, war trials at, 138 

Obadiah, Khazar khakan, 16, 19 
"Obligations," fulfilled by war, 159 
O’Conor, Senator Herbert F., 203 
Oder river, 71 

Office of War Information, 72, 81 
Ohio, 51 

Ohio School of Social Sciences, 102 
"Ohne rnich,” 142 

Oil, and distance, 212; crisis In Iran, 

218; fields, Soviet, 213; nationaliza- 
tion, Iranian, 216; of Middle East, 
213, 217, 219; reserves of, 218 
Oka river, 17 

Old Testament lews, 108, 130 
“One Hundred Things You Should 
Know About Communism and Gov- 
ernment,” 89, 90, 101, 200 
"On the Record" (Thompson), 140 
Opinion polls, 103, 104, 129, 213 
Orange, William of, 8 
Orders, fraternal, philanthropic, social, 

Oregon Republican primary (1948), 


Organizations, Communist, partial list, 

Orientation of soldiers. Communists In, 
u 203 

"Origin of the Balfour Declaration, 
The,” 49 

Orlando, Prime Minister Vittorio, 10 
Orthodox Church, 3 
“Our Enemies are the Red Tyrants. . 

"Our Government’s Deplorable Per- 
formance In Iran. . .’’, 215 
"Our National Policies in This Crisis'* 
(Hoover), 142 

"Our New Privileged Class" (Lyons), 

Outremcr, 3 

Overthrow of the government, by Com- 
munists, 45 
PM, 85 

Pacific Coast States, 86 
Palace guard, leftist, 86 
"Pale of Settlement,” 21 
Palestine, 3, 6, 26, 30, 31, 34, 48, 49, 
137, 194, 218, 219, 225; Arab and 
Jewish zones, 123; Arabs expelled 
from, 126, 127, 155, 164; British 
mandate, 125; Communists “take 
over” partition, 125, 164; Khazar im- 
migrants to, 123; land ownership In, 
130, 131; Moslem refugees from, 216; 
Moslem-Jew tension, 123; population 
of, 123, 130, 131; problem, 132, See 

Palestinians, 106 
Palm Beach Post, 149 
Pan American Union of Socialist States, 



Panama Canal, 59; Canal Workers, 50 
Paraguay, 124 

Paratroopers in Iran, Shinwell’s threat 
of, 216 

Parkes, James, 194 
Parthia and Parthlans, 194 
"Partition,’’ Palestine, 123 
Party regulars, jobs for, 159, 160 
Paschal II, Pope, 3 
Pasvolsky, Leo, 58 
Patronage, 51 

Patterson, Mrs. Eleanor M., 93 
Patterson, Robert, 58, 104 
Pauher, Ana Rabinsohn, 30, 108, 125 
Paul I, 22 

Peace, 10; defined by Tacitus, 153, 154; 
treaties (World War I), 10; treaty of 
1919 (see Versailles, Treaty of), 61; 
h-enty with Japan, 153; treaty with 
Western Cermany, 144 
Pearl Harbor, 81, 83, 112, 185 
Pearl Harbor, The Story of the Secret 
War (Morgenstem), 81 
Pearson, Drew, 11, 58 
PcgJcr, Westbrook, 84 
Pennsylvania, 51 
Pentagon, 101, 108, 118 
Pentateuch, 23 
People, social viewpoint, 40 
People’s Educational Association, 102 
Pepper, Claude, 184 
Periodicals opposing Communism, 197 
Perjury by displaced persons, 165 
Pericin’s, Jeanne, 85 
Perl, William, 33 
Perlzwcig, Dr. Maurice, 222 
Persians, 104 

Petain, Marshal Henri Philippe, 57 
Peter II, the Croat, 21 
Peter III, 21 

Peterman, Ivan II., 156 
Petition, right of, 174 
Petrograd, 21 
Pettengill, Samuel B., 1 1 
Philadelphia Inquirer, 158 
Philadelphia School of Social Science 
and Art, 102 

Philippines, 117, 122, 124, 219 
Phillips, J. C., 44 
Phillips, Congressman John, 178 
Phonograph records. Communist propa- 
ganda by, 232 

Photo League (New York City), 102 

Pilat, Arthur, 167 

Pilgrims to Holy City, Christian, 1, 194 
"Plan for Counter-Action” (Gilbert), 

Plates of books destroyed, 97, 98 
Platform of Democratic party, 161; of 
Socialist party, 161 
Plonsk (Poland), 30 
Poland, 6, 18, 21, 22, 26, 30, 38, 01, 
60, 67, 70, 143; Jewish boycott in, 
63; in World War II, 154; partitions 
of, 38 

Poletti, Covemor Charles, 37 
"Police action,” Truman’s, 150, 183 
Police, Chief of, jailed for UN "prac- 
tice" 223 

Police records of "displaced persons" 
changed, 166 

Policy, foreign. Chapter VI; and “my- 
thologv,” 100; of the West, 218; U.S, 
toward Cennnny, 11, 13, 14 (see 
also Foreign Policy, U. S.) 

"Polish Corridor,” 10 
Polish Jews, 38 

Polish-speaking congressmen, 85 
“Political dependability” of generals 
and admirals, 200 

"Political Observations" (Madison), 

"Political Offices,” 109 
Political science, axiom of, 40 
Politicians, vote-conscious, 123 
Polls, opinion, 103, 104, 129, 213 
Poor Knights of Christ, 3 
Poppaea, Nero’s wife, 29 
Popular History of the Jews (Graetz), 
12 , 21 

Popular vote 1904 to 192S, 47 
Population, basic nature changed in 
U. S., 163; basic strain (U. S.) p 40; 
decline in Cermany, 183; of United 
States, 42; of world, by religious be- 
liefs, 134 

Post-war Program, committee on, 59 
Potential enemy, distance from, 207 
Potsdam, 234 

Potsdam Conference, 59, 70, 71, 72, 78, 
110, 1 87, 233 

Power, anti-Christian, 107; wieldcrs of 
in U. S„ 106 
Prague, 47, 125 
Prairie States, 80 
Preachers, American-minded, 205 



Presidential cabal or coterie, 110, 147 
Presidential election of 1944, S3, 84 
Presidents, American, recent, 43 
Pressman, Lee, 58, 178 
Pressure-group intrigue and espionage, 

Prince Henry of Prussia, 8 
"Professors and the Press, The," 95 
Pro-German sentiment, 140 
Propaganda and propagandists, 9, 10, 
12. 13, 38, 80, 81, 82, 99, 103, 109, 
113, 135, 157, 158, 160, 171, 181, 
196, 205, 222, 228 

Protestantism, beginnings in Germany, 

Protestants, 37; Southern, 50 
"Pruce,” 5 

Prussia, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 78; first 
Duke of, 7; "formally abolished,” 78 
Public AfFairs Luncheon Club, Dallas, 

"Public interest," 182 
Public libraries, book-selecting person- 
nel, 101 

Public opinion, 82. 174, 177, 213, 222 
Purges, 44 
Purim, 105 
Puritans, the, 9 

"Put only Americans on guard,” 191 
Pyle, Ernie, xi 
Pyrenees Mountains, 211 
Pythias, Knights of, 4 

"Quality of mercy, the" (Shakespeare), 

"Quarantine” speech of Franklin D. 

Roosevelt, 13, 04, 65 
Quebec Conference, 137 
“Quislings," said by Jews of other Jews, 

Quota Law, first, 40 

Rabbis, Central Conference of Ameri- 
can, 39 

Rabinowich, Gcrmina, 32 
Race and Nationality as Factors in 
American Life (Fairchild), 39 
to World Peace” (Beaty), Lt 
Race and Nationality as Factors in 
Racial kinship, 9, 28, 29, 30 
Radar defense, U. S., 204 
Radicals, in Russia, 25, 27 

Radio commentators, patriotic, 213 
Radio Script (Close), 97 
Rail and road system. East Germany, 

Rainbow Division, 169 
Raisin, Jacob S., 23 
Raisin, Max. 12, 21, 24, 25, 27, 37, 33 
Rakosi, Matyas, 30 
Rank, J. Arthur, 93, 94 
Rankin, Congressman John E„, 179, 230 
Rapido River, 53 
Itatchford and Ross, 78 
Rnuh, Joe, 58 
"Reactionaries,” 205 
Reader’s Digest, 11, 12, 32, 56, 108, 
204, 208, 227 
Reading, Marquess of, 49 
Reccared, King of Visigoths, 195 
Recognition of Soviet Russia, 62 
Reconnaissance, air, denied MacArthur, 

Red Army, 34, 214; sudden unmasking 
Of in U- S„ 200 
"Red baiter,” 105 
"Red herring," 32, 184, 202 
Red Treason in Hollywood (Fagan), 94 
"Red yoke,” 227 

Red-ucators in the Communist Peace 
Offensive, 180 

Reece, Congressman B. Carroll, 70, 158 
Reed, Congressman Daniel A., 81, 203 
Reed, Douglas, 42 
Reform Judaism, 38 
Refugees, 55, 75, 76, 209, 223; above 
quotas, 76; and votes, 107; Arab, 
127, 217; better off than many native 
Americans, 104; character of refugee 
Jews, 138; difficulty in country of 
origin, 166; diamonds smuggled by, 
164; investigation needed, 167 ; Mos- 
lem, from Palestine, 216; native 
Americans do menial work for, 164; 
number increased in 1950, 160 
Regenstreif, Israel, 32 
Regulations, Federal, 87 
Reich, German, increase of Jewish 
power in, 12 

Reissig, Dr. Frederick E., 127 
"Religious agencies," forgery of docu- 
ments by, 166 

Religious Bodies, 32, 37, 41 
Religious and Moral Welfare, Commit- 
tee on, 57 


"Religious Population o! the World,” 

"Remove not the ancient landmarks,” 


Reorientation camps for American sol- 
diers, scheme for, 103 
Reparations, Cerman, 10; "Israel's” de- 
mand for, 133 

Report of the Canadian Royal Com- 
mission, 29, 35 

Reprisal, for truth, 200; by Communists, 

Republican form of government, 13, 1S2 
Republican Party, *10, 51, 173 
Republican presidents, with no wars, 

Republican primary, Oregon, 1948, 173 
Republicans, American-minded, 174 
Research centers, Cerman, 70 
Retaliation against truth-tellers, 157 
Retreat from Berlin, 141 
Revelation, The (St. John), 130 
Revercomb, Chapman, 173 
"Revisionism,” 99 
Revolutionary War, 160 
Rhodes, island of, 4 
Richard the Third (Shakespeare), 97 
Riddle of MacArthur, The (Gunther), 

Ridgway, Gen. Matthew B., 149, 153 
Ricscl, Victor, 200 

Rise of Brandenburg-Prussio to 17S6, 
The (Fay), 5 
"Risks” in government, 55 
Road-blocks against Communism, de- 
stroyed, 187 

Roehn in beau. Count of, 10 
Rocket developments, German, 70 
Rocky Mountain States, SS 
Roderic, King of Visigoths, 195 
Roman Cat ha lies, 37 
Roman Empire, 1, 15; East, 3, 194 
Romanov dynasty, 21, 22; Michael, first 
Czar, 20 

Roosevelt, Mrs. Eleanor, B4 
Roosevelt, General Elliott, 68, 69, 77, 
86, 123, 214, 215 

Roosevelt, President Franklin D., 13, 
14, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 59, 61, 67, 70, 
74, 77, 83, 110, 113, 123, 184, ISO, 
208, 214, 215, 226; administration 
blocks peace efforts, 65; anti-British 
attitude, 69; boycott, 62; clique 

around, 69, 72; courts Communism, 
139; deal with Communism, 53; dy- 
ing, 121; "eager” for World War ft, 
72; economic and political war 
against Germany, 65: entry into 
World War II, motive of, 159; health, 
84; infatuation for Stalin, 68; on 
“foreign entanglements,” 64; policies, 
Americans and, 335; pressure on 
Britain, France, and Poland, 82; rec- 
ognition of Soviet Government, 52, 
1S7; speeches promising no war, 73; 
the “Total Politician, 72; treaty 
with Soviets, 53; wanted more Jews 
in government, 58 

Rooscvelt-Churchill secret exchanges, 


Roosevelt -Eisenhower policy (n Ger- 
many, 70 

Roosevelt-Stalin deal, 54 
Roosevelt, President Theodore, 40, 50 
Root, Elihu, ex-Sccretary of State, 43 
Rose, Fred (Rosenberg), 32, 39 
Rosenberg, Mrs. Anna, 33, 57, 58, 84, 
103, 109, 140, 141 
Rosenberg, Mrs. Ethel, 33. 167 
Rosenberg, Julius, 33, 167 
Rosenman, Samuel, 59 
Ruggles, General William B., 109 
Rules Committee of the House, 180 
Rules of the House, 230 
Ruling bureaucracy in satellite coun- 
tries, 134 
Rumania, 30, 125 
Russ, the, 17, 228 

Russia, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 21, 
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 
88, 44, 45, 46, 214; an occupied 
country, 228; Christianity in, 227; of 
1917 and U. S. of 1952 compared, 
201; rulers of, 226; Southern, 15; 
term misused for USSR, 228 
Russian-American Industrial Corpora- 
tion, 46 

Russian Fifth Column, 35 
Russian “intelligentsia,” 25 
Russian Jews, 20, 24, 28, 28, 30, 32. 

See Khazars and Judalzed Khazors 
“Russian Mendelssohn,” the, 23 
Russian nobility, 21 

Russian people, 44, 53, 199, 205, 226, 

Russian Revolution (1917), 27, 28 



Russian soldiers, anti-Communist, sanc- 
tuary denied to, 157 
Russo-Japanese War, 50 
Ryukyus, islands, 117 
Sobath, Congressman Adolph J, r 230, 

Sabotage, Communist, 181 
St. Germain, Treaty of, 10 
St. John, Cospei of, xii, 106, 171, 205 
Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of, 3 
St. John the Divine, 130 
St. Mary, German Hospital of, 5 
Saint Matlhetv, Cospei of, 2, 79, 202 
St. Petersburg, 21 
San Antonio Light, 101 
San Francisco, 221 
Sanborn, Frederick R,, 67, 81, 142 
Sanctuary, refused to anti-CommunistS, 

Sardinia, 213 

Satellite armies, Strengthening of, 143 
Satellite lands, GO, 32 
Saturday Evening Post, 112, 201, 227 
Saudi Arabia, 123 
“Saviour of the Jewish People," 34 
Scandinavia, 226 
Scheiberling, Edward N., 188 
Schneidcrmnn, William, 173 
Schocndorf, R. M., 31 
School of Jewish Studies, New York 
City, 102 

Schools and colleges, book-selecting 
personnel, 101 

Scientific personnel, German, 70 
Scotch racial strain in America, 75 
Scott, Sir Walter, 4 
“Secret,” 88 

Secret agreements (World War I), 10 
“Secret History of the Balfour Declar- 
ation,” 49 

Security, death-blow to, 55; of U. S„ 
181, 193 

Security Council of UN, 225 
Sei Fujii vs. the State of California, 224 
Seizure of government, UN “practice,” 

Selections from Chaucer (Child), 5 
Selma (Alabama), Senator Byrd’s 
Speech at, 51 

Semiramis Hotel bombed 127 
Sensitive government positions, 54, 55 
Separatism, 23 (see Jewish nationalists 
and nationalism ) 

Sermon on the Mount, Christ's, 170 
Serot, Col. Andre Pierre, killed in 
"Israel,” 128 
Service, John S., 207 
Seventh Fleet, U. S., 143, 146 
Shakespeare, William, xiii, 96, 97; “the 
quality of mercy," 170 
Shanghai Conspiracy (Willoughby), 


Shepherd, William R., 6, 18, 20 
Sheerin, Rev. John P., 5S 
Shinwell, Emanuel, 57, 216 
Shooting way into UN, 131, 132 
Shoreline, U. S,, 204 
Short, Congressman Dewey, 208 
Short, General Walter C., S3 
Slnibb, Boris, 227 
Siamese delegation to UN, 124 
Siberia, 117 
Sicily, 213 

Sfgismund, Holy Roman Emperor, 0 
Sign, The, 167 

Silverman, Abraham Ceorge, 178 
Slno-Japanese difficulties, 112 
"Sir Hugh and the Jew’s daughter," 98 
Siscbut, King of Visigoths, 195 
“Sitting ducks” at Pear! Harbor, 142 
“Slanted Guide to Library Selections, 
A 95 

“Slav menace,” term liked by Kremlin, 


Slave labor camps, 44, 133 
Slavery, revival of human, 137 
Slaves, Christian, possession of by Jews, 

Slavic people, 15, 17, 36, 37 
Slazck, Edward M., 168 
S medley, Agnes, 112 
Smith, Cov, Alfred E,, 161 
Smith, Congressman Lawrence H., 74, 
E5, 153 

Smith, Senator Margaret Chase, 104 
Smoot, Dan, 94 
Snorkel-type submarines, 71 
Solid], \L, 33. 167 
Social viewpoint of the people, 40 
Socialist bureaucracy, 160 
Socialist government of France, 210 
Socialist government of United King- 
dom, 57, 210 

Socialist Party, platform of, 161 
Socialistic controls, 171 





Society for the Advancement of Man- 
agement, Dallas Chapter, 161 
Sokol shy, George, 72, 224 
Sokoioxv, a Zionist agent, 49 
Soldiers, thought-control of, 85, 108 
Somewhere South of Suez (Heed), 42 
Sondcrn, Frederic, Jr., 203 
South, the (U. S.), 231 
South African War, 11 
South American countries, 41 
South Atlantic States, 66 
South Carolina, 84 
South Dakota, 174 
South Koreans, 154; casualties, 150; 
equipment, 152, virtually unarmed, 

Southern Democrats, coalition with 
Republicans, 174 
Southerners, rural Protestant, 47 
Southwest Review, ix. 

Southwestern States, 86 
Sovereignty of U. S. endangered, 182, 
224, 225 

“Soviet Bloc Lets Jews Leave Freely 
and Take Most Possessions to Israel/’ 

Soviet Communism, 30, 43, 79, 201 
Soviet Embassy, Ottawa, 29; Washing- 
ton, 54; Tehran, 214, 215 
Soviet manpower, 169 
Soviet propaganda, 232 
Soviet seizure of Russia, 45 
Soviet secret police in U. S., 200 
Soviet-held Germany, rail and road sys- 
tem in, 143; reinforcements to, 143 
Soviet-held peoples, 226 
Soviet perimeter, relation of Japan to, 
153, 207 

Soviet Union, 14, 34, 35, 55, 69, 113; 
atrocities by troops of, 71; birthrate, 
168; commissariats, 28; gasoline re- 
serves of, 214; “Israeli” sympathy for, 
127; expansion furthered by U. S. 
policy, 117; foreign office, 136; gov- 
ernment of, 53, 111; "Israeli” devotion 
to, 126; “Israel” votes with, 126; 
manpower reserves, 169; oil Gelds, 
213; recognition of, 62; Satellites, 59; 
strategic aims, 168; strength in the 
European theater, 169; supplies Chi- 
nese Communists, 115; territory, na- 
ture and extent of, 169; squeeze upon 
Iran, 214; trap in Middle East, 136; 

troops under arms, 1951, 143; two 
Far Eastern fronts, 219; U. S. recog- 
nizes, 52, 53, 62; U. S, supplies to, 84 
Spain, 143, 209, 219, 226; and Axis 
countries, £08; and Latin America, 
211; and Moslem world, 211; and 
U. S. in World War II, 208; and 
U. S., mutual defense, 210; anti- 
Co in muni st action, 204; fortress of 
Europe, 208; Gallup poll on aid to, 
210; harbors, 211; Jewish minority 
in, 194; natural barriers, 211, 212; 
U. S. attitude toward, 208, 209; U. S. 
loan to, 210 

“Spain, the Indispensable Ally” (Nick- 
erson), 210 

Spanish army, eighteen divisions of, 211 
Spanish Civil War, 57 
Spanish government, 209 
Spanish Office of Information, 57 
Specking Frankly (Byrnes), 78 
“Specialists,” UN, 223 
Spies in the U, S., 35, 167, 200 
Spiritual unity, 191 
Spitz, Rabbi Leon, 105 
“Spring 1950 Electoral Register, 
Britain,” 106 
Stace, Prof. W. T., 130 
Stalemate, policy of, 149, 150, 154 
Stalin, 26, 28, 29, 44, 53, 6S, 72, 74, 
110, 156, 169, 214, 215; confidence 
in America’s collapse, 199; further- 
ance of aims of, 69; “liquidation’’ of 
anti -Communists, 1S7; position in 
Russia, 187 
Stalinism, 44, 61 
Stalinists and labor, 201 
Star rank in U. S. Army and Navy, 206 
Stark, Admiral Harold R., 83 
Stassen, Gov. Harold, 37, 104, 173, 216 
State Department, 45, 53, 54, 59, 70, 
87, 88, 93, 101, 109, 112, 113, 114, 
116, 119, 136, 137, 143, 144, 152, 
155, 171, 182, 211, 213, 216, 218, 
221, 225, 229, 232; budget, 178; 
cabal, 110; leftists in, 185; leftist 
manipulators of, 145; mistakes, 82; 
patriotism of some members, 232; 
policy on Formosa, 122 
"State within a state,” 23, 25 
"Statement on Formosa” (Truman), 120 
States with largest number of Jews, 51 
“Statistics oo Religious Affiliation," 134 

Stem Croup (“Israeli” Jews), 127 
Steuben, Frederick William Baron 
von, 8 

Stilwell, General Joseph W., 112, 113, 
114; his vituperative poetry, 112 
Stiiwell-Chiang hostility, 113, 114 
Stimson, Henry L., former Secretary of 
1 War, S3 

“Stock of the Puritan,” 58 
“Storm Clouds Over tho Middle East” 
(Lilienthal), 217 
Strait of Gibraltar, 212 
Strait of Formosa, 154, 214; U. S. pol- 
1 icy in, 147 

! Strategic Air Command, Crashes in, 153 

Strategic industries, destruction of, 200 
Strategic interests, U. S., 117 
Strategic use of victory, 11 
Strategic positions in U. S. government. 
Eastern Europeans in, 59 
Strategy, 12, 13, 69, 79; decisions of, 
60; Marshall’s, 151; maxim of, 138; 
unsound, 142 
“Strength crescent” 219 
Struggle Against the Historical Blackout 
(Barnes), 99 

Stuart, Mary II, Queen of England, 8 
’'Stumbling into war,” 60 
Submarine plants, German, 71 
Submarines, snorkel-type, 71 
Subsidization of Soviet, 53 
Subversive Organizations and Publica- 
tions, Guide to, 103 
Subversives, 172 
Sudan, 126 

Suez Cana!, 126, 136, 217, 218 
“Super-Patriotic” press, 140 
Supreme Court, 173, 184, 185 
Surrender of an Empire, The (Web- 
ster), 28, 49 

Sverdlov, Jewish revolutionary leader 
in Russia, 28 
Sweden, 226; Swedes, 17 
Swing, Ravmond Gram, 77 
Switzerland, 27 

Swords in the Dawn (Beaty), x, 63 
Sykes, Sir Mark, 49 
Svnagognes, 16, 39 
Tacitus, Publius Cornelius, 154 
Taft, Senator Robert A., 68, 104, 105 
Taft, President William Howard, 46, 48 
Taiwan, 119 

“Tale of the Prioress” (Chaucer), 98 

raftsman, The (Scott), 4 
Talmud, Babylonian, 16, 19, 20, 23; 
Jerusalem, 19 

Tariff, “general” rates, 63; "most 
favored” rates, 63 
Tarik, Mahometan general, 195 
Tax burden, 220 
Taylor, Glen, 184 
Taylor, Henry J., 164 
Tehran Conference, 72, 86, 111, 214, 
234; banquet at Soviet Embassy, 215; 
tragic decisions of, 187 
Tel Aviv, 127; Soviet Minister at, 133 
Television Broadcasting, 93 
Templars, 4 

Temple of Solomon, 3, 4 
Terrorism, Communist, 181 
Teutonic Order, Knights of, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
9, 14, 15, 78, 98 

Texas Legislature, Gen. MacArthur 
addresses, 193 

"These Days” (Sokolsky), 224 
Third force, non-Christian, 50, 51 
Third term and war, 73 
Thirty-Eighth Parallel, 156 
“This Morning” (Craves), 106 
This Week, 119 
Thomas, Lowell, 126 
Thompson, Dorothy, 140 
“Thought War Against tho Kremlin" 
(Fellers), 227, 228 

Thought-control, 108; thought-dictator- 
ship, 109, (See also Propaganda and 

“Thought Control” (Human Events), 81 
Thurmond, Gov. Strom, 162 
Time, 108 

Times (London), 28 
Tlmcs-Dis;}atch, Richmond, 160 
Times-Herald, Dallas, 122, 181 
Times-Herald, Washington, 33, 46, 84, 
86, 92, 93, 108, 127, 131, 133, 143, 
166, 178, 181, 184, 203, 209, 218, 
224, 228 

Titus Andronicus (Shakespeare), 97 
Tolerance of Visigoths, 195 
Toller, Jewish Communist in Germany, 

Tomb of Christ, 3 
“Top Secret” 88 

“Top Secret Documents Known to Reds 
Often Before U. S. Officials Saw 
Them,” 203 



Totalitarian rule, U. S. drift toward, 160 
Trading Commissions, Communist use 
of for espionage, 181 
Traditions, U. S., 193 
Traitors from "foreign stock," 34 
Trajan, Roman Emperor, 15 
Transportation, East German network, 
142, 143; French, 143; U. S. systems 
in danger, 200 

“Trial of the Eleven Communists, The" 
(Shalett), 52 
Toledo (Spain), 211 
Treason, 148, 152 
Trcitsclike, Jlcinrich von, 12 
Trotsky, Leon, 28, 187 
Truce Conference (1931), 153 
Truman, President Harry S., 58, 70, 71, 
72, S6, 115, 110, 120, J2I, 127, 128, 
129, 131, 138, 145, 152, 153, 156, 
158, 150, 160, ICO, 167, 176, 179, 
182, 183, 214; and Communism, 181, 
232; early mistakes, 110; his admin- 
istration, 137; his popular vote, 1948, 
162; refusal to act against Commu- 
nists, 1S7; veto of Internal Security 
Act, 182 

Truman-Acheson foreign “policy” 121, 
167, 200 ' 

Tnnnan-Achcson war in Korea, 184 
Truman-Achcson-Marshall clique, 149, 

"Trumnnftes,” 51 

“Truman’s Plan to Make Eisenhower 
President" (Huie), 47 
Trussel, C. P., 177 

"Truth About the Katyn Forest Massa- 
cre, The," 82 

Truth. American people denied, 206; 
reprisal for, 208 

“Truth shall make you free, the,” ziii, 
109, 158 

Truth-tellers subject to calumny, 157 
Turkey, Republic of, 150, 212 
Twist, Oliver, 93, 94 
Tydings Committee, 50 
Tydings, Millard, 184, 202 
Ukraine, 18, 20, 30; independence of, 
220; Jews of, 226 
Ukranians, 220 
Ulianov (Lenin), 28 
Un-American Activities, Committee on, 
33, 55. 60, 103, 178, 179, ISO, 203, 
230, 231 

“Uncle Sam, Executioner," 147 
“Unconditional Surrender,” 69, 74, 77 
Undermining the Constitution, A His- 
tory of Lawless Government (Nor- 
ton), 185 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 44, 
54. See Communism, Soefei Union, 
names of individuals, etc. 

United Committee to Save the Jewish 
State, 125 

United Electrical Workers, 201 
United Kingdom, Socialist government 
of, 57 

United Nations, 58, 111, 123, 126, 155, 
199, 210, 221; admits "Israel" 125; 
armed forces of, 223; articles, inter- 
pretations of, 224; charter, 184; char- 
ter supersedes existing law, 224; Cov- 
enant, , dangers of, 224; flag, and 
Israel ’ flag, 223; General Assembly, 
124; headquarters, location, 223; In- 
ternational Labor, Olfice of, 77; Me- 
diator murdered, 127, 155; menace 
of, 193; Moslem influence in, 132; 
regulations, 225; rcnioval of filth 
from, 225; Security Council of, 225; 
Specialists, 22-3; troops of, 223; U. S. 
delegation to. 59; votes, 155; endorses 
crossing 3Sth parallel, 148 
"United Nations is My Rent, The," 225 
United Nations Presentations, 131 
United Nations Relief and Rehabilita- 
tion Administration (UNRRA), 59, 
85, 89 

“U. N. Seizes, Rules, American Cities” 
(Dalv), 223 

United Nations—Actlon for Peace, The 
(Zocca), 132, 224 

United Public Workers of America, 58, 

201, 202, 210 

United Spanish Aid Committee, 209 
United States, 9, 12, 14, 27, 28, 34, 35, 
53, 120; aliens, their disrespect for 
law, 165; and Spain, mutual defense, 
210; blockade aids Chinese Com- 
munists, 203; burden of United Na- 
tions, 224; coercion by, weakens UN, 
224; Communists, anti-Spanlsb, 209; 
delegation to U. N„ 124; domestic 
policy, 63, 222; Far Eastern policy, 
foreign policy, 60, 65, 137; insidious 
forces in, 193; Jewish immigration to, 
42; Jewish population of, 41; Jews 



plan "Halutziuth” in, 222; land own- 
ership in, threatened, 222; leftists in, 
221; National debt of, 220; peace 
treaty with Japan, 153; policy, 155; 
policy in Europe, 56; pro-“Israeli” 
pressures of, 124; purpose In Korea, 
121; fighting men, bravery of, 145, 
171; recognition of Soviet Russia, 62; 
security endangered, 182, 193; sov- 
ereignty threatened, 224; survival of, 
221; troops in Germany (1951), 142; 
vote in Assembly of UN, 223; welfare 
of the, 157 

United States Air Corps, Mrs. Rosen- 
berg in charge of manpower of, 50 
United States Army, Communist plans 
for revolt in, 231; Mrs. Rosenberg in 
charge of manpower of, 56; star rank- 
in, 206 

United States Customs Service, 104 
United States Government, 32, 50, 63. 

See also United States 
United States Marine Corps, 181 
U. S. Navy, Mrs. Rosenberg in charge 
of manpower of, 56; star rank in, 
200; Seventh Fleet, 145, 146 
17. S. Netcs and World Report, 52, 88, 
142, 145, 151, 152, 160, 183, 204, 
212, 227 

United States Relations With China, 
With Special Reference to the Period 
1944-1949, 112, 113, 117 
United States Supreme Court, 47, 184 
"U. S. Zig-Zag Diplomacy Baffles Friend 
and Foe” (Peterman), 150 
U. S.-Canadian border, 11 
U. S. S. Quincy, 123 
Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 12, 16, 
17, 18, 21, 24, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 
35, 47, 43 

Universal Military Training, 109 

Universities in U. S. ( radicals in, 53 

Untermcyer, Samuel, 62, 64, 70 

Ural Mountains, 15 

Urban II, Pope, 1, 2, 14 

Utley, Freda, 112 

Utterperl, William, 33 

V-l and V-2 rocket laboratory, 70 

Vacuum, power, 61, 216 

Valley Forge, 103 

Van Doren, Mark, 98 

Varangians, the, 17 

Velde, Congressman Harold H,, 55 

Venality and treason In high places, 190 
Venice,' 4, 5 
Vermont, 31 
Vernaculars, 23 
Vernadsky, George, 15, 16 
Versailles, 8; Treaty of, 10, 61 
Veto of Internal Security Act, Tru- 
man’s, 182 

Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln 
Brigade, 102 

Veterans’ organizations, their leadership 
needed, 197 

Victory, 142; strategic use of, 11 
Vienna, 10 
Vikings, 10 

"Villain,” a man of native stock, 157 
Vincent, John Carter, 207 
Virgin Islands, 59 
Vishinsky, Andrei Y., 132 
Visigoths of Spain, 194; their tolerance, 

"Visitors’ visas,” refugees admitted on, 

Vistula river, 5, 7 
Vizetcliy, Ernest Alfred, 25 
Vladivostok, 219 
"Voice of America,” 228, 229 
Voicc-of-the-pcoplc, 170 
Volga river, 15, 17, 23 
Voltaire, 22 

Vote-garnering in New York, 133, 233 
Votes, pay-off for, 177 
’’Voyage of Cod," 2 
Wage Stabilization Board, 57 
Waldrop, Frank C., 170, 209 
Waggoner, Walter H., 121 
"Wait and Sec Policy,” 117 
Walker, General Walton H., 145 
Wallace, Vice-President Henry A., 84, 
113, 129, 162 
Wallach (Litvinoff), 52 
Walt Whitman School of Social Science, 
Newark, New Jersey, 102 
"Wanted: A Sound Immigration Policy 
for the United States" (McCarran), 

War, against Germany, causes of, 72; 
criminals of World War III, 139; 
declaration of, 182; definition of, 60; 
increases controls, 159; materiel, U.S. 
gift to Soviet. 142; state of, with 
Germany ended, 144 
“War criminals,” Germany's, 215 



War Department, Congressional Com- 
mittee on Communism in the, 139 
War of 1812, 11 
“War to end all wars,” 10 
“War trials,” Germany, 139 
Warren, Governor Earl, 104 
Wartime Mission fn Spain (Hayes), 208 
“Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War by 
Popular Demand in 1941?” (Barnes), 

Washington Bookshop Association, 102 
Washington Is Like That (Kiplinger), 

Washington, President George, 8, 9, 10, 
103, 191 

Washington Post, The, 210 
Washington Newsletter, 164 
Watt, Robert, 221 

Ways and Means Committee, House, 

"We Owe a Debt” (Phillips), 44 
Webster, Nesta 1L, 28, 49 
Wedemeycr, General Albert C., 116, 
117, 204, 207 

Wedemeycr Report, 118, 151 
Weil, Frank L., 57 
Weinstein, Robert, 56 
Weissberg, Carl, 32 
Weizniann, Dr. Chaim, 30, 49 
Welker, Senator Herman, 184 
Wellington, Duke of, 8 
Welsh racial strain in U. S., 75 
“We need those votes!” 55, 83, 139 
202, 204 

West, defense of, 207 
Western Christian civilization, 10, 14, 
42, 46, 47, 75, 102, 106, 157, 175, 
196, 205, 225, 227, 232 
Western Christian tradition, 215 
Western democracies, revolt against in 
Middle East, 218 

West Germany, peace treaty with, 144 
Western imperialism, avoiding charge 
of, 147 

"West window,” of Russia, 21 
“What Are We in Korea for . . .?” 
(Martin), 148 

“What Fools We Mortals Be” (Wal- 
drop), 209 

“What the GOP Needs to Win in 
1952” (Gallup), 103 
"When Axe We Going to Stop Helping 
Russia Arm?” 203 

While They Fought (Lombard), 69 
“Whim of the man who happens to be 
president,” 60 
Whiston, William, 29 
White crosses, v, 67, 154, 156, 233 
White House, 52, 53, 82, 84, 176; 
'protects Communists in govern- 
ment,” 55 

White, William Allen, 92 
White Russians, 226; armies, 28 
Whitney, Major General Courtney, 207 
“Who Is Letting Our GI’s Down?” 
(Cocke), 154 

“Why Not a Sensible Policy Toward 
Spain?” (Short), 208 
“Why You Buy Books That Sell Com- 
munism” (Kuhn), 95 
Wider die Juden (Crattcnauer), 12 
William of Orange, 8 
Williams Intelligence Summary, 229 
Williams, Senator John 203 
Willkie, Wendell L., 173 
Willoughby, Major General Charles A„ 

Wilson, Charles Edward (President of 
Ceneral Electric), 104 
Wilson, Charles Erwin (President of 
General Motors), 161 
Wilson, Judge Emmet II., 224 
Wilson, President Woodrow, 10, 14, 46, 
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 61, 159 
Wilton, Robert, 2S 
Winant, Ambassador John, 187 
Winchcll, Walter, 122 
Wisconsin Conference on Social 
Legislation, 102 
Wise, Rabbi Stephen, 49 
Witt, Nathan, 178 
Wittenberg (Germany), 7 
Wittner, Felix, 52 
Women’s dubs, their leadership 
needed, 197 

Wood, Congressman John S., 179 
Wood, Lewis, 188 
Woods, Sam E., 165 
Workers Alliance, 102 
Works of Flavius Josephus, The, 29 
World Almanac, 47, 62, 127, 134, 162 
World Communist movement, 181, 182 
World Conference on Recreation and 
Leisure Time, 63 
World Jewish Conference, 222 



World Jewish Economic Federation, 62, 

World Jewish population, 134 
World Jewry, 49 

World labor and Communists, 200 
World peace, 218 
World-Telegram, New York, 85 
World-wide Communist organization, 
181, 182 

World-wide war, avoidance of, 198 
World War I, 9, 12, 13, 14, 27, 38, 39, 
45, 48, 50, 99 

World War II, 13, 14, 38, 45, 60, 67, 
81, 90, 142, 154, 199, 218 
World War III, avoiding, 136, 137; 
war criminals in, 139; preventing or 
winning, 218 

"World Zionist Organization,” 217 
Wyatt, Woodrow, 143 
Xeres, battle of, 195 
Yalta, 59, 72. 74, 85, 110, 123, 127, 
137, 138, 187, 230, 234; men of, 
185, 219; policies “ratified,” 153 
Yalu river, 92, 147, 148, 186 
Yangtze river, 118 

Yarnell, Admiral Harry E., 169, 207 
Yemen, 218 

Young people, enslavement of, 196; 
sought by Communists, 196 

Zacharias, Admiral Eilis M., 205 
Zabotin, Colonel, 29 
Zeiss optical and precision instrument 
works, 70 

Zink, Professor Harold, 77, 78, 138, 166 
Zinoniev, Jewish revolutionaiy in 
Russia, 28 

Zionism, political, 26, 30, 31, 42, 43, 
48, 49, 50, 105, 167 
Zionist aggression, 31, 130, 167 
“Zionist Congress,” 30; Kattowitz 
assembly, 26 

Zionist Jewry, 49; influence on U. S. 

entry into World War I, 49 
"Zionist Illusion, The” (Stace), 130 
Zionist nationalism, 25, 42, 43 
Zionist “pioneers,” training of in U. S., 

Zionists, 9, 26, 30, 31, 39, 49; elimina- 
tion of Arabs by, 129; financial sup- 
port of by the West, 2L9; programs 
of, 222; schemes of in Middle East, 
217; voting power of in U. S., 131, 

Zocca, Marie and Louis, 132 
"Zones” of Western Germany, East 
Germans flee to, 71